|
|
|
Court: Lawsuit over Arkansas killing by cop may proceed
Headline Topics |
2015/08/06 00:07
|
A federal appeals court said Thursday the family of a 67-year-old man shot to death after two off-duty police officers entered his Little Rock apartment without a warrant or an invitation can move forward with a lawsuit.
Eugene Ellison died Dec. 9, 2010. His family alleges Officer Donna Lesher and Detective Tabitha McCrillis, working as private security guards, unlawfully entered his home and that Lesher improperly used deadly force following an argument and scuffle.
Prosecutors declined to press charges, saying the officers' attempts to use non-lethal means to subdue Ellison had failed. The women remain on the force.
Thursday's decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis did not address the merits of the case, only whether the officers could be sued along with the apartment complex that hired them. The three-judge panel said that, at this stage, courts were obligated to consider the case only from the Ellison family's perspective.
The officers have said they noticed through an open door that Ellison's apartment was in disarray and that when they asked if he was OK, Ellison responded with an ambiguous "What does it look like?"
"The apartment was very disheveled. ... The glass-topped coffee table was shattered in an area in front of Mr. Ellison," said Bill Mann, a deputy city attorney for Little Rock. "The manner in which Mr. Ellison spoke led them to be suspicious and wonder if he really was OK."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas attorney general accused of lying to investors
Headline Topics |
2015/08/05 00:06
|
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had an investment opportunity: a tech startup making data servers. He told people he had put his own money into Servergy Inc., according to prosecutors, and helped persuade a state lawmaker and another wealthy businessman to buy more than $100,000 in shares.
All the while, Paxton was actually being compensated by Servergy, according to an indictment unsealed Monday, the same day the state's top law enforcement officer turned himself into jail on securities fraud charges. The alleged deception took place before Paxton took office in January. If convicted, the rising Republican star could face five to 99 years in prison.
It was a low moment for a tea-party favorite who is barely seven months on the job, and whom GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz candidate called a "tireless conservative warrior" when Paxton ran for office last year.
Attorneys for Paxton, 52, said he will plead not guilty to two counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser charge of failing to register with state securities regulators.
"He is looking forward to the opportunity to tell his side of the story in the courtroom," said Dallas attorney Joe Kendall, adding that a judge instructed Paxton's lawyers not to comment further.
A frenzy of media outside the Collin County jail in Paxton's hometown was reminiscent of a year ago, when then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry was booked after being indicted on charges of abusing his power with a 2013 veto. But whereas Perry defiantly welcomed the cameras at jail, Paxton ducked reporters after his booking, driving away in a black SUV.
Nor did top Texas Republicans rush to Paxton's side with the same outrage as they did with Perry, whose case has not yet gone to trial. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who last held the attorney general job, issued only a brief statement that urged the justice system to play out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court: Kansas abortion opponent must stand trial
Headline Topics |
2015/07/29 12:56
|
A Kansas abortion opponent must stand trial over a letter she sent to a Wichita doctor saying someone might place an explosive under the doctor's car, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned late Tuesday a lower court's summary decision that anti-abortion activist Angel Dillard's letter was constitutionally protected speech. The ruling comes in a civil lawsuit brought against Dillard by the Justice Department under a federal law aimed at protecting access to abortion services. A split three-judge appeals panel said the decision about whether the letter constituted a "true threat" should be left for a jury to decide.
The appeals court also rejected Dillard's argument that the government violated her free speech rights by suing her.
Emails were sent late Tuesday night to Dillard's attorney and a Justice Department spokesman seeking comment.
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division sued Dillard in 2011 under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act after the Valley Center woman wrote a letter to Dr. Mila Means, who was training to offer abortion services at her Wichita clinic. At the time, no doctor was doing abortions in Wichita in the wake of Dr. George Tiller's 2009 murder by an abortion opponent as Tiller ushered at his church.
In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals panel said a jury could reasonably find that the letter conveyed a true threat of violence.
"The context in this case includes Wichita's past history of violence against abortion providers, the culmination of this violence in Dr. Tiller's murder less than two years before Defendant mailed her letter, Defendant's publicized friendship with Dr. Tiller's killer, and her reported admiration of his convictions," the appeals court wrote in its decision.
Dillard wrote in her 2011 letter that thousands of people from across the nation were scrutinizing Means' background and would know her "habits and routines."
"They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live," the letter said. "You will be checking under your car every day — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it."
Means has testified that her fears upon getting that letter were heightened after reading a news story by The Associated Press that quoted Dillard saying in a July 2009 interview that she had developed a friendship with Scott Roeder while he was in jail awaiting trial for Tiller's murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds California's shark fin ban
Headline Topics |
2015/07/28 12:56
|
A federal appeals court Monday dismissed a legal challenge to a California law banning the sale, distribution and possession of shark fins.
The legislation does not conflict with a 19th century law that gives federal officials authority to manage shark fishing off the California coast or significantly interfere with interstate commerce, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The 2-1 ruling upheld a lower court decision tossing the lawsuit brought by the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, a political action committee.
The groups had argued that the ban — passed in 2011 — unfairly targeted the Chinese community, which considers shark fin soup a delicacy. Shark finning is the practice of removing the fins from a living shark, leaving the animal to die.
Joseph Breall, an attorney for the groups, said they were reviewing their options and had not yet decided whether to appeal. He said he was heartened by the dissenting opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their lawsuit.
The plaintiffs had argued on appeal that the shark fin law conflicted with the federal law intended to manage shark fishing off the California coast.
The majority in the 9th Circuit ruling, however, said the federal law has no requirement that a certain number of sharks be harvested, and even if it did, the California law still allowed sharks to be taken for purposes other than obtaining their fins.
The federal law, additionally, envisions a broad role for states in crafting fishery management plans, and, like California's ban, makes conservation paramount, the court said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: New health law doesn't infringe on religious freedom
Headline Topics |
2015/07/14 09:22
|
The federal health care law doesn't infringe on the religious freedom of faith-based nonprofit organizations that object to covering birth control in employee health plans, a federal appeals court in Denver ruled Tuesday.
The case involves a group of Colorado nuns and four Christian colleges in Oklahoma.
Religious groups are already exempt from covering contraceptives. But the plaintiffs argued that the exemption doesn't go far enough because they must sign away the coverage to another party, making them feel complicit in providing the contraceptives.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The judges wrote that the law with the exemption does not burden the exercise of religion.
"Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of plaintiffs' beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme ... does not substantially burden their religious exercise," the three-judge panel wrote.
The same court ruled in 2013 that for-profit companies can join the exempted religious organizations and not provide the contraceptives. The U.S. Supreme Court later agreed with the 10th Circuit in the case brought by the Hobby Lobby arts-and-crafts chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silicon Valley company starts to take court disputes online
Headline Topics |
2015/07/11 09:23
|
Imagine working out a divorce without hiring an attorney or stepping into court or disputing the tax assessment on your home completely online.
A Silicon Valley company is starting to make both possibilities a reality with software that experts say represents the next wave of technology in which the law is turned into computer code that can solve legal battles without the need for a judge or attorney.
"We're not quite at the Google car stage in law, but there are no conceptual or technical barriers to what we're talking about," said Oliver Goodenough, director of the Center for Legal Innovation at Vermont Law School, referring to Google's self-driving car.
The computer programs, at least initially, have the ability to relieve overburdened courts of small claims cases, traffic fines and some family law matters. But Goodenough and other experts envision a future in which even more complicated disputes are resolved online, and they say San Jose, California-based Modria has gone far in developing software to realize that.
"There is a version of the future when computers get so good that we trust them to play this role in our society, and it lets us get justice to more people because it's cheaper and more transparent," said Colin Rule, Modria's co-founder.
Officials in Ohio are using Modria's software to resolve disputes over tax assessments and keep them out of court, and a New York-based arbitration association has deployed it to settle medical claims arising from certain types of car crashes.
In the Netherlands, Modria software is being used to guide people through their divorces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma court to look at blocking Tulsa grand jury probe
Headline Topics |
2015/07/02 14:07
|
The Oklahoma Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to stop a grand jury investigation into an embattled sheriff whose longtime friend and volunteer deputy fatally shot an unarmed man.
Attorneys for Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz want justices to toss out a lower court's decision to empanel a grand jury on July 20. The state Supreme Court late Thursday appointed a referee to hear evidence and arguments in the case on July 14.
More than 6,600 Tulsa residents petitioned for the investigation into whether Glanz neglected his duties and whether reservists who gave gifts to the sheriff were shown special treatment. Glanz's lawyers say some signatures were gathered improperly and the petition should be tossed.
District Judge Rebecca Nightingale on Tuesday rejected Glanz's claims. Terry Simonson, a spokesman for the sheriff, said Glanz is appealing to the high court because the law has been applied incorrectly.
"He has the same rights as every citizen in Oklahoma to defend the position he believes in and the right to appeal based upon that conviction," Simonson said. "That's what he did today."
The petition drive began after reserve deputy Robert Bates, 73, shot and killed Eric Harris on April 2. Harris ran from authorities during a gun-sales sting operation and Bates maintains he confused his stun gun and handgun. Bates has pleaded not guilty to second-degree manslaughter in the slaying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
