|
|
|
High court reverses pot conviction over evidence
Headline Court News |
2013/11/11 13:30
|
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the conviction of a Beaverhead County man for criminal distribution of dangerous drugs, saying he was convicted based on insufficient evidence.
The court ruled in a 4-1 decision that state prosecutors presented the testimony of just one witness, who said Anthony James Burwell provided her with marijuana in exchange for baby-sitting his two daughters while he went to work in summer 2011.
Jennifer Jones told authorities that the night before she was supposed to baby-sit, she and Burwell smoked a bowl of a substance she said was marijuana, describing it as "green with orange hairs," according to the opinion written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath.
Jones identified Burwell in a list of "people to narc on" that she wrote while in police custody, McGrath wrote. She gave a vague description of the man and said he lived next door to her friend, according to the opinion.
Officers concluded Jones was referring to Burwell, found that he had a medical marijuana card and charged him in October 2011. He was convicted in district court and sentenced to 10 years, with five years suspended.
"Officers never searched Burwell's residence, never attempted a controlled buy and never discovered any marijuana in his possession," McGrath wrote.
No expert analyzed Jones' description of the substance, no other witnesses backed her testimony and she did not describe the effects of the substance, McGrath wrote.
The evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was a dangerous drug, the chief justice wrote.
Justice Jim Rice dissented, saying that the majority opinion ignores significant circumstantial evidence and that it was up to the jury that convicted Burwell to determine the facts.
Burwell acknowledged that he did not pay Jones cash for baby-sitting and that Burwell and his son were medical marijuana cardholders permitted to grow the drug at home, Rice wrote.
"The testimony here, of a lay witness identifying marijuana from prior experience with the drug, along with the confirming circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to establish the identity of the substance," Rice wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood Asks Supreme Court's Help In Texas
Headline Court News |
2013/11/04 12:44
|
Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to place Texas' new abortion restrictions on hold.
The group says in a filing with the high court Monday that more than a third of the clinics in Texas have been forced to stop providing abortions since a court order allowed the new restrictions to take effect Friday.
Planned Parenthood says that the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went too far in overruling a trial judge who blocked the law's provision that requires doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The filing was addressed to Justice Antonin Scalia, who oversees emergency matters from Texas. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court weighs Mich. ban on affirmative action
Headline Court News |
2013/10/14 13:22
|
After the Supreme Court ruled a decade ago that race could be a factor in college admissions in a Michigan case, affirmative action opponents persuaded the state's voters to outlaw any consideration of race.
Now, the high court is weighing whether that change to Michigan's constitution is itself discriminatory.
It is a proposition that even the lawyer for civil rights groups in favor of affirmative action acknowledges a tough sell, at first glance.
"How can a provision that is designed to end discrimination in fact discriminate?" said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union. Yet that is the difficult argument Rosenbaum will make on Tuesday to a court that has grown more skeptical about taking race into account in education since its Michigan decision in 2003.
A victory for Rosenbaum's side would imperil similar voter-approved initiatives that banned affirmative action in education in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sands asks Nev. court to overturn documents ruling
Headline Court News |
2013/10/11 10:23
|
Nevada's highest court is weighing arguments put forward by casino giant Las Vegas Sands Corp. and disgruntled former Sands executive Steven Jacobs.
The two have been embroiled in a court battle since Jacobs filed a wrongful termination suit in 2010 and accused Sands of a multitude of misdeeds, including doing business with known gangsters and making inappropriate payments to an attorney who was also a Macau lawmaker.
On Wednesday, Jacobs' attorneys asked the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a decision by a district judge throwing out his defamation suit against Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson.
Sands asked the court to overturn decisions made by the same district judge regarding disclosure of evidence.
After Jacobs filed his suit, Adelson told the Wall Street Journal that his former employee was fired for cause. Adelson added that Jacobs was attempting to explain the termination "by using outright lies and fabrications."
Jacobs, who worked in Macau for the Sands subsidiary Sands China Ltd., responded by amending his original suit to accuse Adelson of knowingly spreading harmful falsehoods. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
