|
|
|
Court tosses Sivak's death sentence
Headline Court News |
2011/09/09 00:37
|
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the death sentence of an Idaho man convicted of brutally slaying a former coworker because the state allowed a jailhouse informant to lie on the witness stand.
Lacey Mark Sivak was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Dixie Wilson at the Baird Oil gas station in Garden City. In a ruling handed down Wednesday, the appellate court said that while Sivak's murder conviction was appropriate, the outcome of his sentencing hearing might have been different if prosecutors hadn't knowingly presented the testimony of an inmate who lied on the stand.
Still, the appellate court said state attorneys may decide to hold a new sentencing hearing if they still want to seek the death penalty for Sivak's crimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Va attorney convicted in law firm embezzlement
Headline Topics |
2011/09/07 08:55
|
A former attorney has been convicted of embezzling at least $450,000 from the law firm where she worked.
Henrico County Circuit Judge L.A. Harris Jr. on Friday found Kyle C. Leftwich guilty of eight counts of embezzlement in a scheme to divert funds from Marks amp; Harrison's accounts between 2004 and 2008. She could face up to 160 years in prison when she's sentenced in November.
Evidence showed that Leftwich endorsed Social Security checks made out to her for representing disabled clients. But she deposited the money elsewhere than into the firm's account and rigged firm ledgers to cover her actions.
Leftwich was fired in June 2010 and lost her law license a short time later. She repaid $450,000 to Marks amp; Harrison as part of a civil settlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wal-Mart Uses Class Action Against Netflix
Network News |
2011/09/07 00:36
|
Wal-Mart is using its failed class action lawsuit with Netflix to attract new users to its video streaming service, Vudu.
A federal court in California agreed late last week to allow Wal-Mart to pay $27.5 million to 40 million Netflix subscribers. The kicker? They can make the payment in the form of gift cards for Walmart.com. As a result, this also gives Wal-Mart access to Netflix's customer database.
The class action suit came in response to a dinner meeting in 2005, where the CEOs of Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly agreed to share the DVD market. According to consumer advocates, under the pact, Wal-Mart agreed not to rent DVDs if Netflix promised not to sell them. Class action suits were filed against both companies in 2009, claiming that this agreement violated antitrust laws.
While Wal-Mart decided to settle the case, Netflix is still fighting the allegations, claiming the suit has no merit.
Wal-Mart's settlement, which still has to be finalized in February 2012, comes as the discount giant is in the process of aggressively promoting its Vudu service, which it acquired in February 2010. At the same time, Netflix is in dire need of an image cleanup, following several unfriendly consumer moves, including a recent price hike and the falling out of its Liberty Starz deal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calif. gay marriage ban faces next legal hurdle
Headline Court News |
2011/09/06 08:55
|
California's same-sex marriage ban faces its next legal test Tuesday when the state's highest court attempts to shed light on whether the voter-approved measure's backers have legal authority to appeal the federal ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an hour of arguments on that question, which could prove crucial to the future of the voter-approved ban. The federal appeals court that is considering the initiative's constitutionality wants the state court to weigh in on the matter before it issues its decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed doubts about the ability of Proposition 8's sponsors to challenge the lower court ruling absent the involvement of California's governor or attorney general, both of whom refused to appeal a federal judge's August 2010 decision striking down the ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
The court punted the question to the California Supreme Court earlier this year, saying it was a matter of state law.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot maintain they are legally eligible to represent the majority of California voters who approved the same-sex marriage ban. They argue that because California has such a vigorous citizen's initiative process, it would not make sense for elected officials to effectively veto measures by not defending them in court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hundreds in Fla. want out of Chinese drywall deal
Headline Topics |
2011/09/05 00:37
|
Hundreds of Floridians potentially want to opt out of a proposed $55 million federal settlement over faulty Chinese drywall in hopes of pursuing individual lawsuits in state courts, the attorney for two families said Wednesday.
The lawyer, David Durkee, said a key hearing Friday in Broward County could be a major step in determining whether people dissatisfied with the class-action settlement can take their cases before juries in Florida courts.
They don't want any part of that settlement, Durkee said. They have chosen state court. They want to proceed individually and they want their day in court.
The settlement, first announced in June, involves Banner Supply Co., a major distributor of Chinese drywall, and thousands of affected homeowners, builders, installers and others in Florida. U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans - where lawsuits in several states were consolidated for pretrial purposes - gave the deal preliminary approval in July.
Thousands of homes mainly in the South were affected by installation of Chinese drywall that has a foul odor, can corrode wiring and metal in appliances and cause health problems. The Banner settlement involves mostly Floridians.
Fallon also ordered a temporary halt to drywall lawsuits filed against Banner in state court. The hearing Friday before Broward County Circuit Judge Charles Greene concerns whether cases filed by the families represented by Durkee can proceed despite the federal order and settlement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group seeks appellate action on gays in military
Headline Topics |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
The military's ban on openly gay troops will be lifted within weeks, but the policy can still be re-enacted in the future.
That's why a Republican gay rights organization that sued the Obama administration to stop enforcement of the policy says it will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to declare the nearly 18-year-old law unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling last year.
With several Republican presidential candidates, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, indicating they would favor reinstating the ban if elected, such a ruling is needed, said Dan Woods, the attorney for the Log Cabin Republicans. Declaring the law unconstitutional would also provide a legal path for thousands discharged under the policy to seek reinstatement, back pay or other compensation for having their careers cut short, Woods said.
The repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell' doesn't say anything about the future, Woods said. It doesn't (explicitly) say homosexuals can serve. A new Congress or new president could come back and reinstitute it. We need our case to survive so there is a constraint on the government to prevent it from doing this again.
During her campaign stop in Iowa in August, Bachmann told interviewer Candy Crowley on CNN's State of The Union when asked whether she would reinstitute the law: It worked very well and I would be in consultation with our commanders, but I think, yes, I probably would.
Justice Department attorneys have filed a motion asking the appeals court to dismiss the case, arguing that the repeal process that will lift the ban Sept. 20 makes the lawsuit irrelevant.
The Log Cabin Republicans successfully won an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips last year that halted enforcement of don't ask, don't tell briefly, before the 9th Circuit reinstated it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colombia court reinstates conviction in Galan hit
Industry News |
2011/09/01 09:47
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated the murder conviction of a former justice minister for masterminding the 1989 assassination of presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galan, a courageous foe of drug cartels.
The court also reinstated the 24-year prison sentence a lower court imposed in 2007 on Alberto Santofimio, who was widely considered the political godfather of the late cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar.
Hitmen employed by Escobar killed Galan, and a key witness in Santofimio's trial said he saw the defendant urge Escobar to order the murder.
Kill him, Pablo, testified John Jairo Velasquez, or Popeye, who was Escobar's chief henchman at the time and has confessed to organizing the assassination.
Santofimio, a senator who had been justice minister in the 1970s, was at the time a rival of Galan for the Liberal Party's presidential nomination.
The Aug. 18, 1989, assassination badly traumatized a nation already reeling from a terror campaign by Escobar's henchmen, who killed hundreds of judges, journalists and police. Escobar also targeted civilians with car bombs, even blowing up an airplane in midflight.
The drug kingpin was trying to pressure Colombia's leaders not to extradite drug lords to the United States. Nonetheless, Galan, the presidential frontrunner when he was killed, promised to battle the narcos with extradition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
