|
|
|
Marine wants new charges in Iraq war crime tossed
Court Line |
2014/10/30 16:50
|
The Marine Corps should not be retrying a sergeant whose murder conviction in a major Iraq war crime case was overturned by the military's highest court after he served half of his 11-year sentence, his defense attorneys say.
Civilian defense attorney Chris Oprison said he has filed nine motions that he will present during a two-day hearing for Lawrence Hutchins III that starts Thursday at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base, north of San Diego.
"We think all these charges should be dismissed," Oprison said. "What are they trying to get out of this Marine? He served seven years locked up, away from his wife and family. Why are they putting him through this again after he served that much time?"
The military prosecution declined to comment.
The Marine Corps ordered a retrial for Hutchins last year shortly after the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that found his rights were violated by interrogators in 2006 when he was detained in Iraq and held in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer for a week.
The new defense team is asking the judge to let them go to Iraq to interview witnesses in the village of Hamdania, where Hutchins led an eight-man squad accused of kidnapping an Iraqi man from his home in April 2006, marching him to a ditch and shooting him to death. Hutchins has said he thought the man was an insurgent.
Before his release, the Marine, from Plymouth, Massachusetts, had served seven years in the brig for one of the biggest war crime cases against U.S. troops to emerge from the war. None of the other seven squad members served more than 18 months.
The military last summer re-charged Hutchins. Among the charges is conspiracy to commit murder, which Oprison said is double jeopardy. Hutchins was convicted of murder at his original trial and acquitted of murder with premeditation.
Hutchins' defense attorneys also say the military compromised his case when its investigators raided defense attorneys' offices at Camp Pendleton in May. Oprison said investigators rifled through privileged files that held "the crown jewels" of Hutchins' defense case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US high court: Who best judges fair competition?
Court Line |
2014/10/13 23:29
|
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a North Carolina case over whether U.S. states can delegate the regulation of professions such as dentistry, plumbing, cosmetology and more to boards of practitioners drawn from those occupations.
The issue set for a hearing before the justices Tuesday is whether state-established boards such as those for dentists, veterinarians, doctors and cosmetologists can regulate their occupations without fear of running afoul of federal antitrust laws.
The specific case before the court involves a 2007 decision by the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners warning operators of teeth-whitening kiosks in malls and tanning salons that they were practicing dentistry without a license. The Federal Trade Commission has said that state's dental board engaged in unfair competition in the market for teeth-whitening services.
"Almost everyone from a plumber to the best heart surgeon in the country is affected by one of these boards. Anyone who uses their services is affected by these boards," said Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State & Local Legal Center. That group represents public officials from governors to city council members.
The number of occupations that set educational requirements and other qualifications for work in a field ranges from dozens to hundreds, depending on the state. The issue is becoming increasingly important as more jobs in the growing service sector require licenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
California high court strikes measure from ballot
Court Line |
2014/08/18 21:02
|
The California Supreme Court on Monday blocked an advisory measure backed by Democrats from the November ballot.
By a 5-1 vote, the court ordered the removal of Proposition 49, which would have asked voters if they want a federal constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's so-called Citizens United ruling allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections.
The majority opinion said no harm will come from removing the nonbinding measure while courts determine its validity. The court said it would consider the issue in more detail in September.
Writing separately, Justice Goodwin Liu agreed with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group that filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the measure from the ballot. The group argued that advisory measures are not a proper use of the ballot.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she would have allowed placing the proposition on the ballot, as a divided appeals court had ruled earlier.
The bill to place the measure on the ballot was introduced by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and it passed over Republicans' opposition. Brown, a Democrat, let the bill become law without his signature. Lieu's Sacramento office didn't return a phone call placed late Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Silence can be used against suspects
Court Line |
2014/08/18 21:02
|
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.
Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.
Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.
Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ag-gag laws facing federal court challenges
Court Line |
2014/07/21 22:44
|
The years-long fight between farm organizations and animal rights activists over laws prohibiting secretly filmed documentation of animal abuse is moving from state legislatures to federal courts as laws in Utah and Idaho face constitutional challenges.
Half of U.S. states have attempted to pass so-called ag-gag laws, but only seven have been successful. Among them are Idaho, where this year's law says unauthorized recording is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine, and Utah, whose 2012 law makes it a crime to provide false information to gain access to a farm. Both states now face separate but similarly worded lawsuits that say the measures violate federal statutes offering whistleblower protections and free-speech guarantees.
Farm organizations and livestock producers say ag-gag laws are aimed at protecting their homes and businesses from intruders, and some plan to use social media to assure the public they have nothing to hide. But animal rights groups, free-speech activists and investigative journalists want to throw out the laws because they say the secrecy puts consumers at higher risk of food safety problems and animals at higher risk of abuse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm & Attorney Directory |
| Law Firm PR News provides the most current career information of legal professionals and is the top source for law firms and attorneys. |
| Lawyer & Law Firm Directory |
|
|
Law Firm PR News RSS
