|
|
|
Federal court hits Bush White House over e-mail
Lawyer Blog News |
2009/01/15 16:49
|
A federal court is taking the Bush White House to task on the issue of millions of apparently missing e-mails, saying the administration has failed in its obligation to safeguard presidential records.
In a four-page opinion issued Thursday, Magistrate Judge John Facciola (Fatch-ee-OH-la) says the White House has been ignoring his instructions to search for all electronic messages that may be missing.
The Executive Office of the President, the magistrate said, appears to be avoiding its legal obligation to ensure that electronic messages subject to the Presidential Records Act are preserved. The court says there is a profound societal interest as well as a legal obligation to protect such records. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court sides with Anadarko on oil royalties
Legal Career News |
2009/01/14 16:50
|
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of oil producer Anadarko Petroleum in a case that could prevent the government from collecting billions in royalties on oil and natural gas leases.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a lower court ruling that said the federal government could not collect royalties from eight deepwater leases held by Anadarko in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were obtained between 1996 and 2000 by Kerr-McGee Corp., which Anadarko later acquired.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. says the lawsuit involves more than $150 million in royalties sought by the U.S. Interior Department, which leases offshore tracts to oil and gas producers and, as owner, stands to collect a percentage of revenue. But the ruling could affect other leases and prohibit the government from collecting royalties from other producers. The Interior Department said it may work with Congress to resolve the issue or appeal the case again. At issue is interpretation of a 1995 law designed to provide a break from royalties at a time when oil and natural gas prices were extremely low. The law waived all royalty payments until a specific amount of oil and gas was produced. "If the court's interpretation of Congress' action in 1995 is correct, certain leaseholders will be allowed to produce massive amounts of oil and gas without paying royalties to the United States without regard to the price of oil and gas — perhaps amounting to one of the biggest giveaways of federal resources by Congress in modern history," Interior spokesman Shane Wolfe said. |
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court reviews speedy trial issue
Criminal Law Updates |
2009/01/14 16:49
|
The Supreme Court appeared unlikely Tuesday to favor a broad rule that rewards criminal defendants with dismissal of charges against them because of trial delays by their taxpayer-funded lawyers.
The court heard arguments in a case from Vermont in which the state Supreme Court threw out the assault conviction of career criminal Michael Brillon because his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. Brillon was jailed for three years and went through six defense attorneys before his trial for hitting his girlfriend in the face.
The justices are trying to determine when delays caused by public defenders can amount to a constitutional violation and when governments can be held responsible since they're the ones who assign and pay the lawyers for indigent defendants. As the lawyers for Brillon and Vermont recounted the actions of Brillon, his lawyers, the state's public defender office and the courts, it became clear that, as Justice David Souter said, "There's plenty of blame to go around." For some other violations, criminal defendants are entitled to new trials. But when a defendant is deprived of a speedy trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that dismissal of the charges is the only remedy. "Aren't you giving defense attorneys a perverse incentive" to delay, asked Justice Samuel Alito. Forty states and 15 organizations — state governments, county governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a victim's rights' group — are backing the Vermont prosecutor's appeal of the ruling, worried that if it stands criminal suspects will try to game the system and get the result Brillon did. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wash. court: Sex between teachers, 18-year-olds OK
Lawyer Blog News |
2009/01/14 16:48
|
Washington state law does not bar teachers from having consensual sex with 18-year-old students, an appeals court ruled Tuesday in dismissing a case against a former high school choir teacher.
The teacher, Matthew Hirschfelder, was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly having sex with a Hoquiam High School senior in 2006. He challenged a judge's refusal to dismiss his case, arguing the student wasn't a minor because she was 18.
Hirschfelder, who was 33 at the time, also denies any sexual relationship occurred. A three-judge panel of the Washington Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that the case should be dismissed. While the law was written vaguely, a review of legislative history shows that lawmakers only intended to criminalize contact between teachers and 16- or 17-year-old students — not those over 18, the court said. "The name of the statute is 'sexual misconduct with a minor,'" said Hirschfelder's attorney, Rob Hill, stressing that the state recognizes that an 18-year-old is no longer a minor. The state's code of professional conduct for teachers still prohibits any sexual advance toward or contact with pupils, whatever their age, and teachers can be fired for it. Sexual contact with students younger than 16 is considered child rape or molestation; the age of consent in Washington is 16. Hirschfelder has not been able to work as a teacher since late 2006, when he was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation by the school board. He was arrested and charged in spring 2007, after a former choir student told police she had a monthslong affair with him that began shortly before she graduated. His case did not go to trial because it was stayed pending the appeals court ruling, Hill said. He has been tuning pianos to make ends meet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Obama, Biden, to visit Supreme Court Wednesday
U.S. Legal News |
2009/01/14 16:48
|
President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden plan to make a preinaugural visit to the Supreme Court.
The Obama transition team said the two will visit the court Wednesday afternoon at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts.
It's something of a tradition for incoming presidents and vice presidents to pay their respects to the court, though not all have made the trip. Bill Clinton and his vice president-elect, Al Gore, called on the court in December 1992, and Ronald Reagan and his vice president-elect, George H. W. Bush, visited in November 1980. The Obama team said Wednesday's visit was private, with no press permitted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Court says evidence valid despite police error
Court Feed News |
2009/01/14 16:47
|
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence found after an arrest based on incorrect information from police files may be used against a criminal suspect.
In a 5-4 split, the court upheld the conviction of an Alabama man on federal drug and gun charges.
Bennie Dean Herring was arrested on what the Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's department thought was a valid warrant from a neighboring county. It turned out that the warrant for Herring's arrest had been recalled five months earlier. Herring argued that police negligence should automatically lead to the suppression of evidence found after an unjustified arrest. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts. In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights." Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|