|
|
|
Mass. woman charged in fatal '99 fire faces trial
Court Feed News |
2009/01/11 17:19
|
For nearly a decade, Kathleen Hilton has been in jail, though she's been convicted of nothing. Prosecutors say the grandmother set a fire that killed five people, including three young girls, because she was allegedly angry her son's ex-girlfriend wouldn't let him see his two kids. Her trial is set to begin Tuesday on murder and arson charges after an extraordinary delay while her lawyer fought to keep the jury from hearing an alleged confession she made after the Feb. 24, 1999, blaze in a Lynn triple-decker. Her grandchildren survived, but the blaze killed another family in the building. Hilton, now 62, has spent most of the last decade at MCI-Framingham, a medium-security women's prison where she works in the kitchen and watches television, said her attorney, Michael Natola. In Massachusetts, it usually takes one to two years for murder cases to go to trial. "Ten years is aberrational," said Michael Cassidy, a professor at Boston College Law School. "Sometimes, complex murder cases can take two or three years to get to trial but 10 years is well beyond the average." Natola said he had to push for the statements to be suppressed — no matter how long it took. The case twice went to the Supreme Judicial Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court strikes down federal sex offender law
Legal Career News |
2009/01/09 17:36
|
Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the federal government to hold sex offenders in custody indefinitely beyond the end of their prison terms, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The law allowing civil commitment of "sexually dangerous" federal inmates intrudes on police powers that the Constitution reserves for states, many of which have their own similar statutes, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. Civil commitment power "is among the most severe wielded by any government," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote. "The Framers, distrustful of such authority, reposed such broad powers in the states, limiting the national government to specific and enumerated powers." In upholding a decision by U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt of Raleigh, N.C., the 4th Circuit became the first federal appeals court to rule on an issue that has divided courts nationwide. A judge in Minnesota reached the same conclusion as Britt, while courts in Hawaii, Oklahoma and Massachusetts upheld the measure. Thursday's ruling is binding only in the states included in the 4th Circuit: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller said it was too early to comment on what steps the government might take next. The department could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court or seek a rehearing before the full federal appeals court. |
|
|
|
|
|
Calif. court rejects lawsuit against tax increases
Lawyer News |
2009/01/09 17:35
|
An anti-tax group will consider new legal action after a California appeals court tossed out a lawsuit that sought to block tax increases passed by Democrats in the state Legislature, the group said Thursday. Citing separation of powers, the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled Wednesday it could not intervene because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had not signed the bill into law. The lawsuit was filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, with support from most Republican state lawmakers. It argued that the Democratic majority acted illegally when it passed the tax increases because it did so with a simple majority vote. The state Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for tax increases. John Coupal, president of the taxpayers association, said the group was considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court and a new lawsuit in federal court because the vote violated the constitutional rights of the Republican minority members. "We are still looking at this case for potential appeals because we believe this issue needs to be resolved," he said. Schwarzenegger vetoed the $18 billion proposal, which included a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to start closing California's $42 billion budget deficit. The governor said the package didn't make enough labor and environmental concessions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Burris denies Senate-seat deals, waits for court
U.S. Legal News |
2009/01/09 17:35
|
Roland Burris raised his right hand in a committee room at the Illinois Capitol, swearing to tell a room full of lawmakers the truth about his appointment by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich to the state's vacant U.S. Senate seat. With his promise that he'd made no deals to gain the appointment, Burris cleared what he called one of the two hurdles between him and the oath that would make him Illinois' junior senator. Senate Democrats raised both obstacles. The other hurdle, the signature that Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has so far declined to provide on paperwork certifying Burris' appointment, is in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court. White has said the governor shouldn't have appointed someone to fill President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat, given the corruption charges against him. "I feel like I've passed this test with flying colors," the 71-year-old Burris told reporters Thursday after testifying for almost 90 minutes before the committee, which later voted to recommend impeaching the governor. "I have nothing to hide." Now Burris awaits the court's decision. It isn't clear how long that will take. Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat. The two-term Democratic governor has denied any wrongdoing, but Senate Democrats had warned that the corruption allegations would strip credibility from anyone he named to fill the vacancy. Blagojevich ignored them and appointed Burris on Dec. 30, creating a furor. White pressed the governor not to fill the seat before Burris' appointment, then withheld his signature as a "ceremonial" stand against the move, White spokesman Dave Druker said Thursday. If the court says White has to sign, he will, according to Druker. |
|
|
|
|
|
Calif. gay marriage foes want donors anonymous
Lawyer Blog News |
2009/01/09 11:37
|
Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors. "No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats." The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake. Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it. The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Larry Craig dropping further appeals
Lawyer Blog News |
2009/01/08 16:36
|
A lawyer for former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig says they won't ask the Minnesota Supreme Court to void Craig's conviction in an airport bathroom sex sting. Minneapolis attorney Tom Kelly says he concluded that the state Supreme Court would not accept a petition for further review of the case, so it would be a futile exercise. He says that means the legal wrangling in the case is over. Thursday was the 30-day deadline for Craig to ask the high court to review a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision that went against him. The Idaho Republican was arrested in 2007 by an undercover police officer who was conducting a sting operation against men cruising for gay sex at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The senator quietly pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and paid a fine, but changed his mind after word of his arrest became public. He insisted he was innocent and that he was not gay. He did not seek re-election. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|