Law Fish News for 10-07-2018

Psychological Research – Crash Course Psychology #2

The Supreme Court Denies Review in the Case of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla, But an Unusual Troika of Justices, Including the Chief, Issues a Warning to the Government

The Supreme Court declined to hear Padilla’s challenge to the government’s initial decision to classify him as an enemy combatant subject to military detention. Under the Supreme Court’s rules, if four Justices want to review a decision of a lower court, the petition is granted. A long sequence of victories and defeats in Padilla’s case culminated in a ruling last September by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the President had the power to hold him in military custody. Before the Supreme Court could review that decision, the government transferred him to civilian custody for a criminal trial. Notably, Justice Ginsburg wrote a short dissenting opinion explaining why she thought the Court should have taken the case. 

Justice Kennedy went on to warn the government that the Supreme Court and the lower courts stand ready to enforce Padilla’s rights-including the right to a speedy trial and to habeas corpus review-should the government continue to dither with Padilla. Conservative Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, who has generally granted the government great deference in the detention cases, also appeared to run out of patience in the Padilla case. The appeal from that ruling was recently argued before the Supreme Court, but Chief Justice Roberts did not participate because, under longstanding principles of judicial ethics, a judge or Justice cannot sit on the appeal from a ruling in which he himself participated. If the Chief Justice’s vote on the Hamdan case in the appeals court signaled a willingness to defer to the political branches in how they structure military justice, then his joinder in Justice Kennedy’s warning to the government in the Padilla case may signal a limit to that deference when it comes to the power of the civilian courts to guard their own jurisdiction. 

The key jurisdictional issue in Hamdan is whether that new law-adopted after the D.C. Circuit ruling in Hamdan, but before the Supreme Court heard argument in the case-applies to already-filed habeas petitions like Hamdan’s, or only to new petitions. The fact that Chief Justices Roberts joined Justices Kennedy and Stevens in last week’s Padilla decision, which asserted a muscular view of habeas corpus, suggests that if he were not recused in the Hamdan case, the Chief Justice might well rule against the government on the jurisdictional issue. What is not speculation is the fact that the new Chief Justice-like every one of his predecessors-has already put substantial distance between himself and the positions of the Administration that just months ago nominated him to the Court. 

Keywords: [“Court”,”case”,”Justice”]

How a strange Supreme Court case involving sex offenders could gut the EPA – ThinkProgress

Gundy v. United States is an extraordinarily technical case involving the legal obligations of sex offenders convicted more than a decade ago. Gundy’s lawyers argued that sex offenders are not required to register until after they are released from custody, but the Supreme Court ignored these arguments. Depending on how the Supreme Court resolves this question, the Court could potentially upend a vast array of environmental, labor, and other business regulations. The Nondelegation Doctrine briefly reared its head during the New Deal, at which time the Supreme Court used it to strike down laws delegating authority to the Roosevelt administration. 

As a practical matter the doctrine is difficult to administer, and the Constitution itself provides few hints on how courts should determine which delegations of power are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, for its part, has held that Congress does not run afoul of the Nondelegation Doctrine unless it offers no guidance whatsoever to agencies on how they should exercise their delegated powers. A narrow decision in Gundy would avoid a world where agency regulations stand or fall largely based on whether five members of the Court agree with them. Beginning in the Obama administration, the conservative Federalist Society grew obsessed with finding ways to roll back agency regulations and to cut out the legs of agencies like the EPA. Now, the Federalists play a major role in choosing Donald Trump’s judicial nominees – including Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch – and they remain just as obsessed with reviving doctrines such as Nondelegation. 

Gundy won’t be the first time that Gorsuch considered the impact of the Nondelegation Doctrine on SORNA. In a 2015 opinion Gorsuch wrote as an appellate court judge, the Supreme Usurper In Waiting criticized the very provision at issue in Gundy. As an immediate matter, Gundy involves a narrow provision of law which treads very close to the edges of Nondelegation, and a responsible Court could rule in favor of Mr. Gundy without opening a can of worms. You go to court with the judges you have, not the ones who you can rely on to exercise their power responsibly. 

The Republicans who control the Supreme Court are under considerable pressure to invigorate the Nondelegation Doctrine and to use it for partisan ends. 

Keywords: [“Court”,”Gundy”,”Offender”]


Hearing on New Trial Plea.The judge who presided over Mr. Dotson’s trial in 1979, Richard L. Samuels of the Cook County Circuit Court, refused to believe Mrs. Webb this time and would not grant Mr. Dotson a new trial. 

Ronald Allen, a law professor at Northwestern University, points out that it is ”very difficult, verging on the impossible,” to obtain a new trial. Second, a recantation by a principal witness leads to a new trial only ”in extraordinary and unusual cases,” as the Illinois Supreme Court held in 1931 in People v. Marquis, the state’s leading case on the subject. Judge Benjamin Cardozo, writing in an oft-cited 1916 New York case, People v. Shilitano, said the trial judge alone had the responsibility to determine if recanting witnesses were ”conscience-stricken penitents or criminal conspirators to defeat the ends of justice. 

Fourth, no appellate court will lightly second-guess the trial judge. The New Jersey Supreme Court put it this way in 1976: ”Manner of expression, sincerity, candor and straightforwardness are just some of the intangibles available to the trial judge in evaluating the credibility of recantation testimony. A reviewing court, not having the same advantage, should ordinarily defer to the trial judge’s findings on this sensitive issue as long as the proper criteria are used. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in that 1877 case, Shields v. State, refused to grant the man a new trial, saying, ”How easy by artful or even honest suggestion to awaken a sympathy even in the heart of the victim, who was the main, perhaps only witness against the accused, and who naturally feels responsible for the conviction. ”If mere recantation in itself dictates a new trial,” wrote Judge Samuel A. 

Larner, ”the entire judicial process could be frustrated by the mere whim of a witness recanting his testimony. Courts have frequently said they would not hesitate to grant new trials if the facts warrant it. The Arkansas Supreme Court was tested in 1901, when it had to decide whether to grant Will Bussey a new trial. The court recited the usual rules but said the rules were not so rigid as to prevent a new trial when it was clear that ”the judgment is wrong and that great injustice will result unless a new trial be granted. 

Keywords: [“Trial”,”new”,”Court”]

Law Fish News for 10-06-2018

Supreme Court to Resume Hearing Temple Mosque Case Today

Robinson v. California :: 370 U.S. 660 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Footnote 9]. Not only may addiction innocently result from the use of medically prescribed narcotics, but a person may even be a narcotics addict from the moment of his birth. Apart from prohibiting specific acts such as the purchase, possession and sale of narcotics, California has taken certain legislative steps in regard to the status of being a narcotic addict – a condition commonly recognized as a threat to the State and to the individual. Where narcotic addiction has progressed beyond the incipient, volitional stage, California provides for commitment of three months to two years in a state hospital. The majority’s error is in instructing the California Legislature that hospitalization is the only treatment for narcotics addiction – that anything less is a punishment denying due process. 

I do not consider appellant’s conviction to be a punishment for having an illness or for simply being in some status or condition, but rather a conviction for the regular, repeated or habitual use of narcotics immediately prior to his arrest and in violation of the California law. California is entitled to have its statute and the record so read, particularly where the State’s only purpose in allowing prosecutions for addiction was to supersede its own venue requirements applicable to prosecutions for the use of narcotics and in effect to allow convictions for use. In my opinion, on this record, it was within the power of the State of California to confine him by criminal proceedings for the use of narcotics or for regular use amounting to habitual use. The Court clearly does not rest its decision upon the narrow ground that the jury was not expressly instructed not to convict if it believed appellant’s use of narcotics was beyond his control. It is significant that, in purporting to reaffirm the power of the States to deal with the narcotics traffic, the Court does not include among the obvious powers of the State the power to punish for the use of narcotics. 

The Court has not merely tidied up California’s law by removing some irritating vestige of an outmoded approach to the control of narcotics. I cannot believe that the Court would forbid the application of the criminal laws to the use of narcotics under any circumstances. I fail to see why the Court deems it more appropriate to write into the Constitution its own abstract notions of how best to handle the narcotics problem, for it obviously cannot match either the States or Congress in expert understanding. 

Keywords: [“narcotic”,”addict”,”State”]

Former Ohio Resident Found Not Guilty for Rape, Kidnapping in Unusual 13 Year Old Case

On June 8, 2018, a Delaware County, Ohio jury returned a verdict that finally put an end to a 13 year old criminal case against a former resident. Our client, Wesley Paul Hadsell, 39, was found not guilty on all four felony charges brought against him dating back to 2005, including two counts of rape, kidnapping and felonious assault. Hadsell was found guilty of a lesser, misdemeanor charge of assault and sentenced to 6 months in jail, which was less than his time served. Apart from being 13 years in the making, the Hadsell case and its court proceedings were nothing short of unusual. Hadsell was originally indicted on the charges in 2005, but that case was dismissed after Hadsell was indicted on federal charges elsewhere. 

The legal team at The Law Office of Brian Jones, which included visiting co-counsel, attorney Maxwell Hiltner, protected that right, verifying that the jurors selected had not been exposed to information about the case that may make them impartial in considering only the evidence that was presented at trial. In this case, one prospective juror admitted to using Google on his phone to search the case when he read our client’s name on the docket that morning. The majority of physical evidence and recorded statements gathered by the Delaware Police Department in 2005 had been destroyed, leaving both the prosecution and the defense to make their case predominately with witness testimony, 13 years after the date of the alleged incident. The defense uncovered that most of the DPD witnesses did not remember critical details of the case. When you’re relying on witness testimony, it’s rather important that they can remember the details of the case in question. 

At the end of the proceedings, which lasted a total of four days, the jury determined that the State had not met their burden of proof in finding Hadsell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and returned a verdict that, in essence, brought to end a 13 year old charge. Our client was potentially facing 30 years in jail, but he was found not guilty on all four felony charges, and the case concluded with the sentence of time served – a victory for our client and one more for The Law Office of Brian Jones. 

Keywords: [“case”,”Hadsell”,”charge”]

U.S. Supreme Court cites Florida inheritance law in unusual case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the case of Astrue v. Capato. When Florida resident Robert Capato was diagnosed with esophogeal cancer, he and his wife Karen were concerned that chemotherapy might leave him sterile. Karen then underwent in-vitro fertilization while living in Florida, using her late husband’s stored sperm. 

The only beneficiaries mentioned in his will are his wife Karen; the child they conceived when he was alive; and his children from a prior marriage. Therein is the problem: According to Florida law, children conceived after a parent’s death cannot inherit from the parent, unless they are referred to in the parent’s Will. The Supreme Court got involved because Karen attempted to claim Social Security Survivor Benefits for the twins. The case then went to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision, and found its way to the Supreme Court. The Justices ruled unanimously that the twins are not eligible for survivor benefits because the federal government – i.e, the Social Security Administration – must base its decisions upon each state’s own inheritance laws. 

Even though Karen actually gave birth to the twins in New Jersey, they were conceived in Florida, and thus, Florida intestacy laws apply. Mr. Karp is the founder of The Karp Law Firm, a South Florida law firm with offices in Palm Beach Gardens, Boynton Beach and St. Lucie, Florida. Mr. 

Karp was named a 2011 SuperLawyer by SuperLawyer Magazine and a member of the 2011 Florida Legal Elite by Florida Trend Magazine. He is admitted to practice law in New York as well as Florida. 

Keywords: [“Florida”,”law”,”Capato”]

Law Fish News for 10-05-2018

An unusual day at the Old Bailey

Legal Dictionary

n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Tortures like the rack or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. 

Enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation and bad food are generally allowed. The U.S. Supreme Court has waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case, which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Hanging is certainly cruel but was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. 

Keywords: [“Cruel”,”unusual”,”penalty”]

Legally Weird: Strange Lawsuits Archives

One resident of the Trump Palace tower in Miami, Florida, has filed a lawsuit against the condo tower. Unlike most lawsuits these days against a Trump entity, there’s nothing political about this one. The case is due to a cleaning crew that threw away 15 paintings, which were worth approximately $80,000. According to one report, the plaintiff, Ronny Lustigman, is an art dealer and collector. Last year, he had the paintings delivered to his condo. 

Rather than store the paintings inside his unit, the paintings were stored in a hallway where residents often store items. The cleaning crew allegedly mistook the paintings for garbage and hauled them away. Sadly, it’s reported that Lustigman only recovered one of the paintings, since, luckily, the driver of the garbage truck saw the paintings and took one home. Presently, it is unknown what became of the other 14 works. 

Keywords: [“paintings”,”store”,”against”]

In ‘Unusual’ Move, DEP Taps DC Litigator for Pa. High Court Appeal

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM’s legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM’s content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM’s other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information. ALM’s content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content. 

Keywords: [“LexisNexis”,”content”,”legal”]

Citing ‘Unusual’ Facts, NLRB Asks DC Circuit to Restart ‘Joint-Employer’ Case

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM’s legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM’s content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM’s other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information. ALM’s content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content. 

Keywords: [“content”,”legal”,”ALM's”]

(PDF) An Unusual Case of Cut-Throat Injury: a Medico-Legal Masquerade

Considered as follows: a) several injuries are observed on the. Findings as multiple self-inflicted injuries, a. single stab wound, no hesitation mark, or. An equivocal death is a. death in which, it is not immediately clear. 

Measuring 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm x skin. Placed measuring 6 cm x 0.7 cm x. subcutaneous tissue deep was present. Measuring 3.5 cm x 0.1 cm x skin. Above the injury no.3 and 4.1 cm. 

Placed measuring 4.5 cm x 0.1 cm x. skin deep was present on the front. Placed measuring 2 cm x 0.1 cm x. skin deep was present on the front. 

Keywords: [“Measuring”,”skin”,”0.1″]

Unusual for MP to intervene in court case, Letters in Print News & Top Stories

It is not uncommon for MPs to write appeals, on behalf of their residents, for the reduction or waiver of traffic fines, where the letters are sent directly to the Traffic Police. I think it is rare for MPs to write appeal letters directly to the judiciary on behalf of their residents. As far as I know, during Meet-the-People Sessions, requests concerning court cases are not accepted and the standard procedure is to ask the appellant to seek help from legal clinics or legal aid bureaus. The courts should not be, or seen to be, subject to influence from MPs, as judicial independence is vital and important to the separation of constitutional powers. 

Keywords: [“write”,”MPs”,”court”]

FindLaw Legal Curiosities Blog

Paul Gonzales is facing 10 felony counts for his dine-and-dash antics on numerous dates across Southern California, including seven counts of extortion, two counts of attempted extortion, and one count of grand theft. If convicted on all counts, he could spend 13 years in prison. Bail was set at $315,000, which seems high given the crime, but odds are high the dine-and-dash dater would jump bail. 

Keywords: [“count”,”dates”,”high”]

Unusual weather events, acts of God and legal liability

You can find out more about our use of cookies in About Cookies, including instructions on how to turn off cookies if you wish to do so. By continuing to browse this site you agree to us using cookies as described in About Cookies. 

Keywords: [“cookies”]

Law Fish News for 10-04-2018

15 Unsolved Human Disappearances

Top 10 Unusual Lawsuits

We’ve all heard about the woman who sued McDonald’s after she spilled coffee on herself, or the thief who sued a family after injuring himself while trying to break into their house, but those are just the tip of the iceberg. Here are ten of the most outrageous and unusual lawsuits to ever make their way into a courtroom. In 2006, Heckard sued Michael Jordan and the Nike corporation for over $800 million after alleging that his uncanny resemblance to the NBA superstar had led to defamation, permanent injury, and emotional pain and suffering. Overton sued for $10,000, but the case was thrown out before ever making it to trial. Even though he freely admitted the accident had been his fault, Gokey sued the city for $3,600 in damages. 

After the city denied the claim and asserted that he couldn’t legally sue himself, Gokey filed a new lawsuit, this time in his wife’s name. Teunis Tenbrook, a philosophy student at Erasmus University in the Netherlands, sued his school after he was thrown out for having unusually smelly feet. He sued, and after a ten-year legal battle, a judge ruled in 2009 that having smelly feet is no excuse to prevent a student from continuing their studies. She sued for over $300 million, which was roughly the same as the space mission’s total budget, but her case was eventually rejected after a physicist argued that the probe had no real effect on the comet’s trajectory. In 2005, a Romanian prisoner named Pavel Mircea attempted to sue God for fraud and gross negligence. 

Mircea sued for an undisclosed amount, partially to be reimbursed for money he had spent on prayer candles and other religious goods, and directed his case toward the Officials of the Romanian Orthodox Church, whom he considered to be God’s representatives on Earth. Riches, who is currently doing time in an Oklahoma City prison, has even attempted to sue historical figures like Plato, Nostradamus, and Che Guevara, as well as inanimate objects like the Eiffel Tower, the Lincoln Memorial, and Plymouth Rock. 

Keywords: [“sue”,”case”,”lawsuit”]

SCC announces it is revisiting Dunsmuir; unusual move is ‘catnip for law nerds’

In a highly unusual move, the Supreme Court of Canada has served notice that it plans to revisit its landmark Dunsmuir judgment on standard of review. The top court virtually never gives reasons for granting applications for leave to appeal but made a historic exception May 10 when it granted leave to appeal in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Alexander Vavilov, and announced it will hear that case together with two other appeals which were also granted leave, Bell Canada, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, and National Football League, et al. 

The court’s dramatic announcement also signals potential interveners who care about administrative law issues that they should consider whether they might assist the court in revisiting and clarifying one of the most important, but uncertain and unpredictable, areas of law. In Vavilov, the federal citizenship minister is challenging a Federal Court of Appeal majority decision overturning as unreasonable a decision by the Registrar of Citizenship that the Canadian-born son of Russian spies is not a Canadian. In the minister’s successful application for leave to appeal, he argues the development and application of the reasonableness standard of review by the Federal Court of Appeal has muddied the judicial review waters. v. Attorney General of Canada and National Football League et al. 

v. Attorney General of Canada the appellants are attacking a 2016 decision of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that banned the simultaneous substitution of Canadian advertisements, in place of U.S. advertisements, on both the Canadian and American channels broadcasting the U.S. Super Bowl in Canada. 

Keywords: [“Court”,”appeal”,”review”]

Hair analysis of an unusual case of Chloroquine intoxication

To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. FiguresChloroquine was quantitated in hair in fatal poisoning case. High concentration of chloroquine was found in deceased’s hair. Kidney contained 37.3 mg/kg chloroquine. These findings strongly suggested chloroquine intoxication. 

A dead body of middle aged man was exhumed from 6.5 month earth-grave. Autopsy findings were non-specific as the body was completely putrefied. Deceased’s scalp hair and kidney was sent for toxicological analysis. Hair sample was incubated with 1 M NaOH. Chloroquine was detected in hair and kidney during basic drug screen performed on GC/MS. 

For confirmation and quantitation, chloroquine was extracted using Hypersep verify CX SPE cartridges while mass detector was operated in SIM mode using the ions of m/z 245.0, 290.1, 319.0 for chloroquine while ions of m/z 260 and 455 were monitored for nalorphine. Chloroquine was present in high concentration in hair as well as in kidney. Chloroquine was not detected in the wash solvents, suggesting ingestion of the drug rather than an external contamination of hair. These findings strongly suggested the acute exposure of higher doses of chloroquine to the deceased before death. 

Keywords: [“chloroquine”,”hair”,”Kidney”]

Man Beats Pot Charges With Unusual Strategy: Admit Guilt

It’s illegal to grow marijuana in Georgia, meaning things didn’t look good for Javonnie McCoy when police busted him with nearly a pound of home-grown pot in his residence. Things surely looked worse for him when he got in front of a jury in Dublin, Georgia, and flat-out admitted that the pot was his and, yes, he did grow it. The jury’s decision was seemingly a no-brainer because the law is crystal clear-and yet jurors found him not guilty last week. As Bill Torpy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explains, it may have been because of an unusual legal strategy used by McCoy’s attorney called jury nullification. In this case, she argued that it made no sense to send an otherwise law-abiding citizen to prison over some pot plants. 

As Marijuana Moment notes, the judge would have had no choice but to impose a mandatory one-year sentence if a guilty verdict had come back. McCoy had told the court that he was beaten into a coma in 2003 and that marijuana is about the only thing that helps with the lingering pain and trauma. For the record, she dislikes the term jury nullification. 

Keywords: [“jury”,”McCoy”,”thing”]

Law Fish News for 10-03-2018

||বিশ্বের সবচেয়ে অদ্ভুত পোষা প্রাণী || ||Most Unusual Pets In The World ||

Under the opinions of justices Stewart and White, legislatures must establish strict standards for juries to follow in determining sentences in capital cases. Chief Justice Burger rejects the view, adopted by Justices Marshall and Brennan, that capital punishment is cruel since it is not necessary to achieve legitimate penal ends. Justice Blackmun repeats the advice of Chief justice Burger: the decision whether capital punishment is considered cruel and unusual by contemporary society is a legislative decision80 Argu7 399. Justice Powell again advocates judicial restraint in considering this argument, since conjecture about possible public response to capital punishment involves no judicially manageable standards. A similar argument, presented by Justice Marshall, claims that if the public knew of the discriminatory imposition of capital punishment they would condemn the death penalty. 93 Justice Powell agrees with Chief Justice Burger that questions of the efficacy of capital punishment in achieving criminal ends are not within the scope of the eighth amendment. 4 Proofs such as those advanced by Justices Brennan and Marshall, that the death penalty fulfills no penal function better than other 2 Id. 

at 442. Of the four dissenting Justices, only Justice Powell discusses the claim that capital punishment is disproportionate to the crime of rape. Justice Rehnquist believes that the Court has exceeded its power, completely disregarding the principle of judicial restraint: The task of judging constitutional cases imposed by Art. For the reasons well stated in the opinions of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. 

Justice Blackmun, I conclude that this decision holding unconstitutional capital punishment is not an act of iudgement, but rather an act of will.10′ In sum, in Furmanv. Georgiafive Supreme Court Justices for separate reasons agreed that the death penalty was cruel and unusual for the three deg’ 408 U.S. at 456. Justice Blackmun simply stated that he believed that capital punishment was not disproportionate for the crime of rape. 

Keywords: [“Justice”,”PUNISHMENT”,”capital”]

Court: Anti-camping laws ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in some cases

The ruling comes out of a case in Boise, Idaho in which the court sided with six homeless residents of Boise who had sued the city in 2009 for citations they received after violating an ordinance similar to Flagstaff’s. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals covers much of the western United States and thus the ruling will affect the western sea board, Montana, Idaho and Arizona. The ruling stated that anti-camping ordinances were unconstitutional as long as there were more homeless residents than available beds, but the case was later resolved outside court and the ruling did not go into effect. Flagstaff has recently struggled with its own anti-camping ordinance; in May of this year, the Flagstaff City Council decided against changing or repealing the city’s ordinance. Flagstaff’s ordinance was adopted in 2005 but last amended in 2009, and makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor, the lowest level, for people to camp within city limits on public property. 

There are about 160 beds available in shelters around Flagstaff year-round, with more generally becoming available in winter when demand is higher, said Ross Altenbaugh, director for Flagstaff Shelter Services. The Flagstaff Police Department is already required to give only a warning for a first offense and provide those sleeping on public property with a list of available resources. Rick Brust, who works with Catholic Charities’ PATH program, which does outreach to those sleeping at night outside a shelter, said they don’t expect the ruling to change the situation in Flagstaff significantly. The court also suggested that even if beds are available, a city cannot cite people for sleeping on public property if the available beds are in shelters that require participation in religious practices. Although one of Flagstaff’s shelters, the Sunshine Mission, is religiously affiliated and offers services, they do not require those who stay there to participate in such practices. 

The ruling does not appear to affect laws regarding those sleeping in vehicles. The Flagstaff Police Department and the City of Flagstaff were not able to comment prior to publication. 

Keywords: [“Flagstaff”,”city”,”ruling”]

Art or Obscenity? Unusual Case Draws Controversy

Amid the ubiquitous pornography available on the Internet, those stories, read by about 29 paying subscribers, have made Fletcher one of the few people facing federal criminal charges for obscenity. Once relatively common, federal obscenity cases in the last 15 years have become something of a rarity, law professors and former prosecutors say. Though child pornography prosecutions are increasing, adult obscenity laws are unevenly enforced across the country, taking a back seat to high-profile areas like terrorism cases and drug enforcement. Fletcher’s case has generated even more attention because, unlike the vast majority of material thought to be obscene, Fletcher’s stories have no accompanying photographs or images. In the 35 years since the Supreme Court’s seminal case defining obscenity, it appears that not a single successful federal obscenity prosecution has been based solely on the written word. 

In a separate case decided that year, the court held that written descriptions alone, without pictures, can be obscene. Mary Beth Buchanan, the US Attorney in Pittsburgh, who has a reputation as one of the federal prosecutors to aggressively pursue obscenity cases, was unavailable for comment. Much pornography may meet the technical definition of obscenity. Though both former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales said they planned to make obscenity a priority, there have been comparatively few obscenity cases brought separately from allegations of child pornography or sexual abuse. State obscenity charges against the rap group 2 Live Crew for their explicit lyrics were thrown out. 

An Ohio man pleaded guilty to state obscenity charges in 2005 for diary entries that described fantasies of sexually abusing children but was granted a new trial after a court ruled that his lawyers were ineffective because they advised him not to pursue a first amendment defense. Though Fletcher’s lawyers argue that it should never be constitutional to prosecute text-only cases, her trial will probably focus on whether her stories have literary or scientific merit. 

Keywords: [“Fletcher”,”case”,”obscenity”]

Law Fish News for 10-02-2018

Is Lethal Injection Cruel and Unusual? Glossip v Gross Explained

The Unusual Case of Ian Paterson and Criminally Harmful Surgery

On 28th April 2017 in the case of breast surgeon, Ian Paterson, the jury in Nottingham Crown Court agreed that in carrying out unnecessary and mutilating surgery the defendant had done what no reasonable surgeon would do. Paterson was convicted of seventeen counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three counts of unlawful wounding against nine women and one man. Without greed as a possible motive his actions are baffling, and the prosecution’s case, in alleging that surgery which Paterson argued was performed in the patient’s best interests actually constituted GBH or unlawful wounding, would be more challenging because of the medical context of the allegations. The offences of which Paterson has been convicted – which require either intention to cause GBH or, for the lesser section 20 offence, intention or foresight to inflict some harm – are generally not applied to surgery because although the surgeon does technically satisfy the requirements of the lesser offence by intentionally wounding the patient, she is acting in the patient’s interests and not maliciously. Paterson misled his patients by falsely telling them that the surgery was necessary and appropriate. 

The prosecution’s case was that the inaccurate information that Paterson conveyed in order to gain consent meant that the patients had not given real consent. Thus Paterson’s case necessitated a complex decision by the jury that also drew from civil law principles, notably the Bolam standard: they were asked to decide if the advice Paterson provided to patients was advice that no responsible body of appropriately qualified breast surgeons would give. The facts pointed towards multiple situations in which Paterson knew very well that his advice was inaccurate and designed to mislead. Consequently, his actions in obtaining false consent and performing the surgery that inflicted wounds and seventeen instances of GBH could not be regarded as legitimate within the medical exception. In Paterson’s case, there was a systematic failure to prevent him from harming patients over many years preceding the criminal investigations. 

Sir Ian Kennedy’s Review of the Heart of England NHS Trust’s response to concerns about Paterson’s surgical practice revealed that a hierarchical and oppressive culture made it difficult for colleagues to raise concerns about senior colleagues. The managerial approach prioritised meeting targets over patient safety and patient-centred consent within an environment that misused principles of confidentiality to perpetuate secrecy, concealing vital information that should have been scrutinised and then used to prevent Paterson’s misdeeds. Although Paterson’s crimes are indeed unusual, hospital environments in which harmful medical practices are permitted to flourish in spite of concerns raised are sadly not so unusual, which may be the most important issue raised by this appalling case. 

Keywords: [“Paterson”,”patient”,”surgery”]

Coronary artery tuberculosis: An unusual case of sudden death

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is the leading cause of mortality from an infectious agent worldwide, with 1.4 million deaths and 10.4 million new TB cases in 2015 [1x. World Health Organization. Globally, approximately 1.7 billion people were latently infected in 2014, forming a massive reservoir for potential reactivation cases [4x. Houben, R.M. and Dodd, P.J. 

The global burden of latent tuberculosis infection: a re-estimation using mathematical modelling. In most cases, the mechanism of death is massive haemoptysis [5x. Biedrzycki, O.J. and Baithun, S.I. TB-related sudden death due to myocarditis complicating miliary TB: a case report and review of the literature. 

Disseminated extrapulmonary TB involves almost any site, and diverse manifestations are possible, including those within the heart [6x.[6]Prout, S. and Benatar, S.R. Disseminated tuberculosis. In contrast, myocardial disease is uncommon, with a reported incidence ranging from 0.14 to <0.3% [7x. Rose, A.G. 

Cardiac tuberculosis. Among other signs, patients may present with arrhythmias, heart failure from impaired myocardial contractility, and vena caval or ventricular outflow tract obstruction [7x. Rose, A.G. Cardiac tuberculosis. A small case series of myocardial TB from the United States in 1931 found granulomatous inflammation involving the coronary arterial adventitia or the entire vascular wall, with or without nonspecific obliterative intimal fibrosis [12x. 

McMillan, T.M., Gouley, B., and Bellet, S. Tuberculosis of the myocardium: a report of four cases. Two case reports from South Africa and India respectively, detail myocardial tuberculosis with associated coronary artery involvement. A more recent case report from Cuba also described sudden cardiac death from tuberculous coronary arteritis. Their patient’s histology showed that the inflammatory process involved all layers of the artery wall including endothelium, as well as periarterial fat [14x. 

Rodriguez, Y., de Armas, Y., Capo, V., Wissmann, G., Goldani, L.Z., and De Waard, J.H. Sudden death related to tuberculous coronary arteritis. There have been two non-English language case reports from Russia concerning sudden death due to tuberculous endarteritis of the coronary arteries [16x.[16]Zlateva, M. and Belicheva, L. Lesion of the cardiac arteries in general miliary tuberculosis. 

Diagnosis of cardiac tuberculosis remains challenging. 

Keywords: [“tuberculosis”,”case”,”cardiac”]

California Supreme Court Construes CEQA’s “Unusual Circumstances” Exception to Categorical Exemptions in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley Decision

In a 46-page majority opinion written by Justice Chin and joined by four other justices, punctuated by an 18-page concurring opinion which reads like a dissent, the California Supreme Court reversed the First District Court of Appeal’s judgment in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley and remanded for further proceedings. The City approved – as categorically exempt from CEQA – a permit for a 6,478-square-foot house with attached 3,394-square-foot 10-car garage, covering 16% of a steeply sloped lot in a heavily wooded area on Rose Street in Berkeley. The City’s planning director responded with conflicting evidence that 68 dwellings in the City exceed 6,000 square feet, nine exceed 9,000 square feet, and five exceed 10,000 square feet, and that 16 residences within 300 feet of the project exceed its floor-area-to-lot-area ratio. After hearing testimony from all three engineers, and others, the City Council denied the appeal and affirmed the permit approval pursuant to the CEQA exemptions. 

The trial court denied plaintiffs’ writ of mandate challenging the approval, finding that substantial evidence supported the applicability of the Class 3 and 32 exemptions, and that Guidelines 15300. 2’s exception did not apply – notwithstanding acknowledged evidence from Karp of potentially significant effects – because the proposed project presented no unusual circumstances. As a foundational matter, the Court treated the CEQA Guidelines as binding regulatory mandates. The majority found the appellants’ and concurring opinion’s interpretation would render categorical exemptions essentially toothless. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. A party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental impact. 

The Court did not direct a particular outcome in the case before it. Finally, in addressing the potential question of remedy on remand, the Court pointed out that nothing in CEQA authorizes a court to direct a public agency to exercise its discretion in any particular way, and that if a categorical exemption were determined inapplicable, required further CEQA compliance could consist of an EIR or a negative declaration, mitigated or otherwise. 

Keywords: [“Court”,”circumstance”,”unusual”]

Law Fish News for 10-01-2018

Affair Between Coworkers Leads to Unusual Unemployment Case in Louisiana

Christopher Williams had been working for a decade as a refuse disposal driver for the city of Ruston, La., when, in April 2011, he met with Assistant Public Works Director Ed Pittman and Public Works Director Lewis Love. Their conversation dealt with an alleged affair between Williams’ wife, Sandra, also a city employee, and Williams’ supervisor, Solid Waste Superintendent Dennis Woods. With no allegation that the couple was engaging in sexual activity at work, Pittman and Love informed Williams that his wife and Woods would not be fired. Apparently recognizing Williams’ awkward situation, the city gave him the option of transferring to another position with the same pay and more chances to advance. In May, 2013, Williams, Woods, and Sandra had an argument in Sandra’s office. 

Shortly thereafter, Williams was suspended with pay, and the city terminated his employment three weeks later. Williams subsequently filed for unemployment benefits with the state workforce commission. Jim Liner testified that in June 2011, Williams’ garbage truck broke down. Liner arrived at the scene and told Williams that Woods was going to pick him up. Williams appealed the board’s decision to state district court, which found that the board’s determination was not supported by sufficient and competent evidence or applicable law, and reinstated the tribunal’s decision. 

On appeal, the city and the commission argued that Williams was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. First, contrary to its employee handbook, the city did not give written instructions to Williams about not contacting Sandra or Woods, nor did it issue a warning, nor did it document the disparaging remarks that Williams allegedly made. 

Keywords: [“Williams”,”Woods”,”Sandra”]

Seth Rich lawsuit against Fox News stands on unusual legal ground

Mary Rich and her husband, Joel Rich talk about the loss of their son in their home in Omaha, Nebraska, on January 11, 2017. The parents of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer murdered in 2016, filed a lawsuit last week against Fox News. Some necessary background: Rich was fatally shot in his Washington, DC, neighborhood in the early hours of July 10, 2016. Police have not identified any suspects or motives, beyond the possibility that Rich was killed during an attempted robbery. Right-wing groups began floating the conspiracy theory that Rich was the source of the DNC emails that. 

The theory held that Rich had been killed in retaliation for leaking the emails. So did Fox contributor Newt Gingrich, as a guest on Fox & Friends. The complaint also includes one cause of action against Fox News alone: negligent supervision and/or retention. Libel is not an available route because the news coverage focused on Rich, and death wipes out libel claims, so relatives can’t bring them. The US Supreme Court considered claims, one of them IIED, brought against Hustler. 

Historically, too, courts have been suspicious of efforts by public officials and figures to evade constitutional protections for expression by recasting libel claims as other torts, such as IIED. Public officials and figures used to think of IIED as an attractive alternative to libel, because for years in IIED cases they did not have to prove the kind of fault that such libel plaintiffs did. Mary and Joel Rich seem to have as strong an IIED case as any, based on the coverage they were subjected to, the harm they suffered, and the overwhelming likelihood that they would be treated as private people and not public figures. 

Keywords: [“Rich”,”IIED”,”media”]

Sue me! 10 most ridiculous lawsuits of the year

Starbucks is the subject of this year’s most bizarre lawsuits after the company twice was accused of shorting its customers coffee. The actions against the coffee maker were deemed the most outlandish on this year’s Top Ten Most Ridiculous Lawsuits of 2016, an annual collection of unusual legal actions compiled by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. The organization, which highlights the absurd lawsuits as part of its quest to promote civil justice reform, surveyed 5,000 consumers to narrow down the most ridiculous filings. In one case against the coffee maker, multiple plaintiffs claimed their lattes had a quarter inch of steamed milk instead of coffee, according to ILR’s website 

In another action, a woman said the company puts too much ice in its iced coffees. While Starbucks topped the list, the rest of the lawsuits don’t disappoint. The runner-up featured a person who claimed a lip balm manufacturer violated a California packaging and labeling law because its tubes didn’t allow a person to get to the lip balm at the bottom. In Georgia, a woman was awarded $161,000 after she was found only slightly liable for walking into a ladder while looking at her cell phone. The incident caused an indentation in the woman’s head. 

She also suffered from headaches and a mild concussion. 

Keywords: [“lawsuits”,”coffee”,”action”]

Unusual legal approach comes as London judge convicts George Szilagyi in drug -trafficking case

There is wiggle room to allow someone not to take issue with the Crown’s case without acknowledging guilt, leaving open the possibility of an appeal. Szilagyi offered his no contest acknowledgment to counts of possessing cocaine, oxycodone and MDMA, or ecstasy, for the purpose of trafficking. Szilagyi’s case has been lurching through the justice system and various pre-trial motions. His lawyer’s unsuccessful Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge of a London police search of Szilagyi’s apartment on Dec. 1, 2011, likely led to the unusual plea arrangement. Federal drug prosecutor Frances Brennan outlined the agreed facts in the case to Superior Court Justice Lynne Leitch. 

Police saw Szilagyi leave his Waterloo Street home about 3:30 p.m. on the day they got the warrant. In a bedroom, police found 28 grams of cocaine in a sandwich bag in a dresser and two two-gram bags of ecstasy. Police also found two pellet guns, though defence lawyer Venus Sayed told Leitch that Szilagyi denies owning them. The safe contained three grams of ecstasy and 28 grams of cocaine in sandwich bags. 

Szilagyi was rearrested for possession for the purpose of trafficking. Leitch said the firearms wouldn’t be taken into account in the case. Szilagyi, a personal support worker with no criminal record, is scheduled to return to court. 

Keywords: [“Szilagyi”,”police”,”gram”]

Law Fish News for 09-30-2018

Cruel and unusual? Perth court case to challenge validity of Ontario SPCA

Ontario’s animal protection laws are outdated, unconstitutional and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More specifically, Jeffrey Bogaerts of the Ontario Landowners Association is alleging the law that gives the OSPCA its broad powers to investigate offences and lay criminal charges is unconstitutional. The law allows OSPCA inspectors to enter private property, in some cases without a warrant, and seize animals it believes aren’t being cared for properly. Since it’s not a government agency, the OSPCA isn’t subject to freedom-of-information laws, it can’t be investigated by the Ontario Ombudsman, nor are its officers regulated by laws such as the Police Services Act, which governs police conduct. Joining the landowners association will be the animal rights group Animal Justice, which has been given intervener status in the case. 

Animal Justice, which has intervened in a number of animal abuse and animal rights cases and campaigned against zoos and aquariums, will have 30 minutes to present its argument during the day-long hearing. The OSPCA gets its powers from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, legislation that has its roots in English law from the 19th century. The OSPCA spends $3 million a year on investigating and enforcing animal cruelty laws. Brian Shiller, legal counsel for the OSPCA, declined to comment for this story and referred questions to the Ministry of the Attorney General, which is defending the Bogaerts challenge. The rights of homeowners versus the OSPCA have clashed in court before. 

With the help of the Andrews and the Landowners Association, Johnson took her case to Ontario’s quasi-judicial Animal Care Review Board, arguing the OSPCA had violated her charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure. If the court rules in Bogaerts’ favour, it could force the province to completely rewrite the OSPCA Act. 

Keywords: [“animal”,”OSPCA”,”law”]

Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia

In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, the Court held that no duration of confinement is per se unconstitutional. While the Eighth Amendment forbids grossly disproportionate punishments for capital sentences, the court is less clear on its boundaries for noncapital sentences. The Supreme Court does consider age when determining the constitutionality of imprisonment. 2011, the Supreme Court determined that, for juvenile non-homicide offenders, life sentences with no chance of parole was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that juveniles are less deserving of severe punishment because they are less culpable than adults and have a greater capacity for change. 2455, the Court expanded on Graham to forbid life sentences without parole to juvenile homicide offenders. 

The Court reviewed factors including the threat posed by an official, the amount of time an official had to respond to the situation, and the amount of pain inflicted on the inmate. In Hudson v McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, the Court held that a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights could be violated if malicious force was used against him, even in the prisoner did not experience significant pain. 1910, the Court held that prison overcrowding in California was unconstitutional because the living conditions resulted in medical care violations. The Court reasoned that prisoners would suffer and could die if they did not receive with adequate medical care. In Gates v Cook, 376 F.3d 323, the Fifth Circuit followed the rule established by the Supreme Court. In Gates, the court found conditions of confinement to be unconstitutional because inmates were subject to filthy conditions, including pest infestation; improper sanitary conditions and plumbing; and inadequate mental health care. 

Keywords: [“Court”,”sentences”,”conditions”]

Unfair marital agreements, chaos of EU law and unusual routes to fairness: DB v PB EWHC 3431

A two track enforcement process around the EU with the UK and Denmark having a slower process because they refuse to bow the knee to the EU keenness for every country to use applicable law. So even though the husband lost the divorce race to court, he was able to get the needs-based claim back into Sweden through another EU law. On another occasion he referred to it as ‘unintended or accidental consequences’ of the EU law. It is the intent and heart of this EU law that parties may agree, even without any legal representation and disclosure, that a country should deal with their needs based claims. It binds the court with which the couple have the closest connection, a concept irrelevant in EU law. 

Where the English court dealing with the affairs of a family are prevented by a combination of an unfair marital agreement and an EU law from producing a fair outcome then unusual devices and routes need to be taken. We are a common law jurisdiction and our family finance law is almost entirely from case law, and so we are entitled to look to case law. Unlike many countries around the world, England has the same criteria in statute law for needs and sharing claims. Case law has pushed them in different directions and with different criteria. Here the EU law intervenes and stops England, and any other country dealing comprehensively with the financial affairs and divorce of a couple, from making fair provision for needs because of the jurisdiction choice within the marital agreement. 

Except that some family law organisations want these EU law to remain part of English national law. Like the entire country, there are different views held at iFLG, and other lawyers have different opinions about EU law after Brexit. 

Keywords: [“law”,”need”,”court”]

Law Fish News for 09-29-2018

Byron York: An unusual turn in the Michael Flynn case?

Observers are buzzing about a series of events in the last 60 days in the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump national security adviser who on Dec. 1 pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation. First, there is some mystery surrounding the removal of Judge Rudolph Contreras from the case. Just days after accepting Flynn’s guilty plea, Contreras was taken off the case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Of potentially more interest is Contreras’ replacement, Judge Emmet Sullivan. 

Sullivan is well known in legal circles for having been the judge in the case of Ted Stevens, the Republican senator from Alaska who was prosecuted for corruption by the George W. Bush Justice Department. In April 2009, Eric Holder, the Obama attorney general who inherited the mess, dropped the case. What Flynn watchers are noting today is that when all that happened back in 2009, Sullivan ripped into the Stevens prosecutors with an anger rarely seen on the bench. Sullivan was furious that the federal government had repeatedly withheld evidence from the Stevens defense and has been known ever since as a judge who is a stickler for making sure defendants are allowed access to all the evidence they are entitled to. 

On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan’s evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision. Prosecutors and the defense submitted to Sullivan a proposed order limiting the use of any new evidence produced by the government. The latest filings indicate both sides are taking Sullivan’s order seriously, which is certainly a good idea, given Sullivan’s history. 

Keywords: [“Sullivan”,”Flynn”,”case”]

Monsanto’s Roundup to face cancer claims in unusual court case

Claims that the active ingredient in the widely used weed killer Roundup can cause cancer have been evaluated by international agencies, U.S. and foreign regulators and the product’s manufacturer – agribusiness giant Monsanto. Chhabria is presiding over more than 300 lawsuits against Monsanto Co. by cancer victims and their families who say the company long knew about Roundup’s cancer risk but failed to warn them. The plaintiffs must first persuade Chhabria that he should allow their epidemiologists and other doctors to testify to a jury that Roundup can cause cancer. 

Many regulators have rejected the link, and Monsanto vehemently denies it and says hundreds of studies have found glyphosate – Roundup’s active ingredient – is safe. Chhabria will not determine if the cancer connection exists, but whether the claim has been tested, reviewed and published and is widely accepted in the scientific community. Monsanto developed glyphosate in the 1970s, and the weed killer is now sold in more than 160 countries. St. Louis-based Monsanto also sells seeds genetically modified to produce crops that can tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate as the surrounding weeds die. 

A flurry of lawsuits against Monsanto in federal and states courts followed, and California added glyphosate to its list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Christine Sheppard, among those suing Monsanto, said she sprayed Roundup for years to control weeds on her Hawaii coffee farm. Now 68, she is in remission but experiences severe pain in her hands and legs from her cancer treatment and has a weak immune system. Monsanto has attacked the international research agency’s opinion as an outlier. A federal judge in Sacramento last week blocked California from requiring that Roundup carry a label stating that it is known to cause cancer, saying the warning is misleading because almost all regulators have concluded there is no evidence glyphosate is a carcinogen. 

Keywords: [“cancer”,”Monsanto”,”glyphosate”]

The Grisly Murder Case That Could Turn Half of Oklahoma Back Into Tribal Lands

Groups representing oil and gas companies and the state’s business community also urged the Supreme Court to intervene, framing the situation as economically disruptive. Those effects are already apparent: State officials told the court last month that at least 46 defendants had already invoked the ruling in lawsuits challenging their own convictions. Jurors handed Murphy a death sentence, kicking off a nearly two-decade-long appeals process in state and federal courts. Murphy presented an unusual claim along the way: that the federal government, and not the state of Oklahoma, had jurisdiction over his case. State courts acknowledged that Murphy and Jacobs were both members of Creek Nation. 

The Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals also held that Murphy’s historical evidence was insufficient to prove that the land on which the crime occurred was still part of Indian country. Murphy then turned to the federal courts, where he argued that the state courts had wrongly interpreted existing precedents on tribal reservations. In a voluminous 133-page decision, the judges admonished the state courts for ignoring precedents like Solem v. Bartlett, a 1984 Supreme Court case that laid out a three-part test for disputes about Indian reservation boundaries. In Solem, the high court had unanimously ruled that each reservation continues to exist in its original form unless Congress explicitly changes its borders or abolishes it altogether. 

If the Supreme Court takes up the dispute in the coming months, it’d likely rank among the most significant cases of the fall 2018 term. Perhaps the most interesting voice in the matter would be the newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, who sat as a member of the Tenth Circuit before his nomination to the high court by President Donald Trump. Gorsuch’s tenure on a Western federal appellate court gave him more experience on tribal issues than most of his colleagues. 

Keywords: [“court”,”federal”,”state”]

Law Fish News for 09-28-2018

Judging can be fun and legal tales about serious disputes are often humorous and very rock ‘n’ roll-as illustrated by the recent matter of Peaches’ wild house party in Washington, DC.Peaches’ festivities yielded District of Columbia et al v. Theodore Wesby, a Jan. 22 case that demonstrates two little-known features of work on the high court. The matter of Peaches’ guerrilla house party is a prime example of this. Only some of the alleged visitors claimed to even understand how they had come to be at what was maybe a bachelor party, maybe hosted by Peaches, who also went by the name of Tasty. The cops reached Peaches by cellphone, but she refused to return to the scene of the crime-or party. 

Police couldn’t get straight answers from the partygoers, many of whom tried to escape from the house but were arrested. One of the women explained that the previous owner had recently passed away, and Peaches had just started renting the house from the grandson who inherited it. According to Thomas, police then asked the woman to call Peaches, who answered her cellphone and explained that she had just left the party to go to the store. Officers challenged the civil suit and the DC Circuit Court found against the cops, reasoning that there was no probable cause to arrest the revelers-as required by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures-because no one in the house could authorize the entry. Peaches wasn’t an owner, renter, or even present at the party and had no authority over the home, while the homeowner was also absent and unaware of festivities. 

Taken together, the condition of the house and the conduct of the partygoers allowed the officers to make several ‘common-sense conclusions about human behavior. ‘ Because most homeowners do not live in such conditions or permit such activities in their homes, the officers could infer that the partygoers knew the party was not authorized. In Ginsburg’s view, though the officers should not be subject to a civil suit for their on-duty decisions, there was no disorderly conduct at Peaches’ party, and attendees didn’t necessarily know they couldn’t enter the home. 

Keywords: [“officers”,”Peaches”,”house”]

Unusual/Multi-Issue Cases Attorney Sacramento

When it comes to handling family law matters in California, not all cases that need to be settled between partners and their children are easy and they do not always fit into a standard pattern for resolution. The Law Office of David A. Martin & Associates in Sacramento, CA is well qualified in family law and also has compassion when handling these issues, particularly for unusual and multi-issue cases. An example of a more unusual case might be when two unmarried partners have decided to separate and they are caring for children, but the paternity of these children is uncertain. It is important to confirm paternity, as this determines who has the responsibility of taking care of the children when the partnership breaks down and who should be paying for child support. 

If these issues can be permanently resolved between the parties concerned, the California legal system is more than happy to see an amicable outcome that will favor, in particular, the children who receive top priority because their future is at stake. If the outgoing partners find it difficult to reach their own resolution then this is when an experienced family law attorney is needed to finalize the future of all those concerned. Multi-Issue Cases After the break-up of a marriage there are many factors that have to be taken into account. If these matters are not solved at the earliest point in time, they may continue on for far too long into the future. This does not allow the partners to establish a new life and provide security for the children. 

In California, the principles governing family law emphasize the need to solve issues associated with marital breakdown and the separating of partners amicably and in a timely manner. The high standard of living offered to families living in the state should not be compromised by unresolved disputes that cost money and reduce the quality of life for all concerned. If you and your ex partner are going through a divorce and your lives are complicated by an unusual or multi-issue case call the Law Office of David A. Martin & Associates in Sacramento, CA at 381-4040 for your initial consultation. 

Keywords: [“law”,”children”,”partner”]

U.S. Supreme Court rejects case to test Oregon’s unusual nonunanimous jury system

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that could have tested Oregon’s unusual system of allowing nonunanimous jury verdicts, dealing a blow to critics who claim the rule is unconstitutional. Oregon and Louisiana will remain the only states to allow juries to convict most felony defendants with a 10-2 vote, though Oregon still requires a unanimous vote to find defendants guilty of murder. Lawyers for defendant Dale Lambert had petitioned the nation’s high court to review Louisiana’s jury law, claiming that such statutes deprive some defendants of equal protection under the law and should be ruled as unconstitutional. Lambert, 30, was convicted in 2015 of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury vote in Louisiana’s Orleans Parish. 

Previously, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon and Louisiana’s jury laws in 1972 and has declined to hear cases challenging Oregon’s 10-2 jury verdicts since as recently as 2009. Criminal justice reform advocates – who believe nonunanimous juries are deeply flawed and punitive toward nonwhite defendants – had hoped the court’s recent interest in cases involving race and juries could compel a new hearing. Earlier this year, Kaplan published an article in the Oregon Law Review that argued how nonunanimous juries undermined the state’s criminal just system. In Oregon nearly four decades later, it was a sensational murder trial involving a Jewish suspect that prompted voters in 1934 to adopt the nonunanimous jury system, according to advocates and legal scholars. Though declined by the high court, Oregon legislators still have the ability to refer a proposal to voters to change the system back to a 12-0 vote, which would likely spark a multimillion-dollar ballot fight. 

State lawmakers have not tackled the issue of nonunanimous juries since it first recommended a public vote in 1934. In an interview with The Oregonian/OregonLive last month, Kaplan said the rule is likely to limit evidence-based jury deliberations and increase wrongful convictions. Some of Oregon’s most seasoned prosecutors, who support the state’s unique jury system, disagree with that characterization. 

Keywords: [“jury”,”Oregon”,”vote”]