|
|
|
Judge: Super Bowl Funds OK for Churches
Legal Career News |
2007/08/09 12:57
|
| Most of the $736,000 the city promised to three churches as part of a program to clean up the city ahead of the 2006 Super Bowl was justified, but some were not, federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn ruled Wednesday that most of the grants were allowed because any downtown property owner was eligible to apply. He noted that the churches used the grants on lighting, parking lots, sanctuaries and landscaping. But Cohn said some of the money the churches spent on improving large signs and stained glass windows containing religious imagery violated the separation of church and state. It wasn't clear exactly how much grant money would be disallowed under Cohn's ruling. The judge gave both sides until Aug. 28 to discuss how much of the money won't be paid to the churches. New Jersey-based American Atheists, which sued the city, said it may appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge rules fired state employees can go back to work
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/09 10:58
|
A judge Wednesday reinstated two state employees fired by the Blagojevich administration, describing the case as "bizarre, even as Kafkaesque."
After 16 months without paychecks, Dawn DeFraties and Michael Casey, held up as examples of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's effort to thwart government corruption, could be back at work as early as Monday with back wages.
Sangamon County Circuit Judge Patrick Kelley ruled that the Illinois Civil Service Commission mishandled the matter. DeFraties and Casey had a hearing last winter to get their jobs back, but the commission in May called for resuming the case to collect more evidence.
State law requires a ruling within 60 days of the end of testimony, a deadline Kelley agreed the commission blew. He noted commissioners did not explain why they wanted more evidence or what they were seeking.
"The facts of this case can be described as bizarre, even as Kafkaesque," Kelley said. "Clearly, these were the actions of a mysterious, calculating bureaucracy whose motives we can only speculate about."
DeFraties and Casey declined comment. DeFraties will get roughly $127,584 in back pay and Casey, $78,400.
The decree is a significant blow to Blagojevich. He fired the former personnel workers in April 2006 for allegedly rigging the state hiring process after an investigation by the state's executive inspector general.
DeFraties and Casey claimed they were being singled out for giving politically connected job applications -- many of which came from the governor's office -- special treatment to divert attention from federal prosecutors' inquiries about Blagojevich's hiring practices.
One of the attorneys for the state, Joseph Gagliardo, said an appeal is likely. The state attorney general will decide whether to appeal after consulting the commission, a spokesman said.
"The governor will spare no tax dollar getting his way," said Carl Draper, who represents DeFraties and Casey.
Gagliardo's law firm, Laner Muchin, has represented the state in the matter. The firm has gotten $2.2 million since July 2005, according to state records, but that work includes at least 12 other cases, Blagojevich spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said.
Another law firm, Schiff Hardin, has been paid $2.9 million during the same period. Blagojevich said the firm was hired to review state employment procedures after the federal inquiry began.
"It's unfortunate that the court's decision today is based on the Civil Service Commission's review process, not on the merits of the inspector general's findings," Ottenhoff said.
An administrative law judge who presided over the hearing, however, ruled on the merits, recommending the commission put DeFraties and Casey back to work after 14-day suspensions.
The commission balked and Draper sued in June, arguing not only that the 60-day clock had expired, but that his clients' due process rights were violated because the case, filed in May 2006, dragged on too long. Kelley rejected the due process argument.
Removing troublemakers from office shouldn't be an endless ordeal, Draper told Kelley.
"There's a reason courts have countenanced this process: Fire first and get your hearing later. But do it in a timely manner," Draper said. "To use the words of Larry the Cable Guy, 'Get 'er done.' If you have bad people, get 'er done."
The government countered that the commission had indeed made a decision in May -- to collect more evidence, which pushed back the deadline.
Matthew Bilinsky, an assistant attorney general representing the commission, said the hearing should have continued, the additional evidence collected, and then a judge could decide whether the process was proper.
"Who gets to say when the (hearing) transcript has to be cut off and no additional information be applied to it?" Bilinsky said.
The administrative law judge found evidence that the pair violated laws in evaluating job applications too weak to support dismissal and said they weren't insubordinate for failing to answer questions about hiring posed by a Schiff Hardin lawyer.
But he said they should be suspended for 14 days for not doing enough to stop the special review process for applications that came from the governor's office, legislators or other politicians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Says Couey Eligible For Death Penalty
Court Feed News |
2007/08/09 09:00
|
Circuit Judge Richard Howard ruled Tuesday that John Couey is not mentally retarded. That means Couey, 48, is eligible for the death penalty. Defense attorneys argued Couey cannot face execution because he is retarded. Howard sifted through a great deal of evidence and testimony on the issue of Couey's mental status and ultimately relied on what he called the most credible intelligence test: one administered by prosecution expert Gregory Pritchard, a clinical psychologist.
Couey scored 78. The legal cutoff point is 70.
"The judge's ruling is consistent with the position that I took. He [Couey] is not retarded, and he's not retarded beyond a reasonable doubt," Chief Assistant State Attorney Ric Ridgway said Tuesday night. The prosecutor had read the judge's ruling earlier in the evening.
Couey was convicted in March of burglary, kidnapping, sexual battery and murder in the 2005 death of Jessica, a 9-year-old third-grader from Homosassa. The same Miami jury recommended, in a 10-2 vote, that the convicted sex offender be sentenced to death.
The judge's ruling means a possible death sentence is looming. Howard is not obliged to follow the jury's recommendation, but is required to give it "great weight."
Ridgway declined to predict the sentence. A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 24.
"It would not be appropriate to say this foreshadows what the judge's ruling will be," Ridgway said.
To have proven Couey was retarded, defense attorneys had to show that his IQ was less than 70, that he lacks adaptive functioning and that the retardation existed before he was 18. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.
Members of the Lunsford family could not be reached Tuesday for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Seizes OJ Simpson's All-Pro Football Earnings
Court Feed News |
2007/08/08 15:43
|
| Relatives of murder victim Ron Goldman won a court order on Tuesday seizing any money O.J. Simpson earns for lending his name and likeness to a football video game with a fictional team called the Assassins and a knife-wielding mascot. The legal victory was part of an effort by Goldman's estate to satisfy a $33.5 million judgment won against Simpson in a wrongful death suit brought against him in the 1994 stabbing deaths of Goldman and Simpson's ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. The former star running back was acquitted of criminal charges in 1995 at the end of a sensational murder trial but was found legally responsible for their deaths by a civil court jury two years later. Simpson has maintained his innocence and vowed never to pay the jury award voluntarily. Last week, Goldman's estate, led by his father Fred Goldman, secured rights to Simpson's aborted book, "If I Did It," containing his hypothetical first-person account of the murders, after a long legal fight with the now-bankrupt company set up to collect Simpson's reported $1 million advance. In their latest bid to collect on the civil judgment, the Goldmans went after any licensing fees, royalties or other compensation Simpson was paid or will be paid for his name and likeness in the new video game, "All-Pro Football 2K8." The game is published by Take-Two Interactive Software (TTWO.O), the company behind such controversial video game titles as "Grand Theft Auto" and "Manhunt 2," which was banned in Britain and given the equivalent of an adults-only rating in the United States. TEAM OF "ASSASSINS" "All-Pro Football" features the likenesses of 240 retired National Football League players, including Simpson, whom game users can assign to fictional teams with preset names, one of which is "The Assassins." As previewed on a Web site for video game promotional trailers, the team mascot is a hooded figure who makes stabbing motions with a large knife in the end zone when the Assassins score. Simpson does not have to be assigned to that team, but he was in a clip shown on the Game Trailers Web site. Take-Two has declined to say how it obtained rights to Simpson's name and likeness but said he was compensated. The company also has issued a statement saying the knife-wielding Assassins mascot is "not specifically associated with O.J. Simpson, and the game does not promote any such connection." Under the order issued by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gerald Rosenberg, any earnings to Simpson that "have been paid, are due or may be due in the future" for use of his image and likeness in the video game must be turned over to the Goldman estate. Moreover, Simpson was ordered to turn over copies of his Take-Two contract and related documents, as well as any other financial deals he has yet to disclose. "Basically he (the judge) said to Mr. Simpson, 'Pay up,"' Goldman attorney David Cook said after the hearing. Ronald Slates, a lawyer for Simpson, argued against the order, saying the California court lacked jurisdiction over his client, who has lived in Florida for several years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court denies test drugs to dying patients
Legal Career News |
2007/08/08 14:44
|
People who are dying do not have the right to obtain unapproved drugs that are potentially lifesaving, even if their doctors say the treatment offers their best hope for survival, a U.S. appeals court here ruled Tuesday. In an 8-2 decision, the court said federal drug regulators were entrusted by law with deciding when new drugs were safe for wide use.
The families of terminally ill patients, several of whom died after they were denied promising drugs that were still in tests, filed suit. They said that patients who were dying were far more willing to take risks and argued that they should not be forced to wait years for new treatments to win final approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
The judges said the families should take their pleas to Congress, not the courts.
However, the two dissenters said the ruling ignored the Constitution's protection for individuals and their right to life, and instead bowed to "a dangerous brand of paternalism" that put the government's interest first.
Leaders of the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs said they would appeal to the Supreme Court. The group was named in honor of Abigail Burroughs, a 21-year-old University of Virginia student who died of cancer in 2001. Her father, Frank, said she was denied the use of two investigational anti-cancer drugs that were recommended by her oncologist. These drugs later received FDA approval.
"We are talking about terminally ill patients and about drugs that were shown to work in earlier trials," said alliance co-founder Steve Walker, a St. Petersburg, Fla., geologist whose wife died of colon cancer.
In 2003, the alliance petitioned the FDA, urging it to change its rules so that drug companies could make available to dying patients "investigational drugs" that had won preliminary approval. There is a "different risk-benefit trade-off facing patients who are terminally ill and have no other treatment options," it said.
The FDA turned away the plea, saying it needed "to maintain a strong clinical trial system" to gather evidence before approving drugs for general use.
With the aid of the Washington Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, the alliance sued the FDA. It said the Constitution should be read to "embrace the right of a terminally ill patient with no remaining approved treatment options to decide, in consultation with his or her own doctor . . . to seek access to investigational medications that the FDA concedes are safe and promising enough for substantial human testing."
The case touched on issues that had been debated fiercely in medical and legal circles.
Medical experts have long disagreed on whether the FDA moves too slowly or too quickly in approving new drugs. Some doctors have argued that clinical trials should be opened to more patients who might benefit from the new treatments.
And since the Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 that set out the right to abortion, many legal scholars have frowned on judges creating "new rights" from vague clauses in the Constitution. The suit over new drugs focused on the 5th Amendment, which says "no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
In 2004, a federal judge rejected the alliance's suit, saying there was "no constitutional right of access to unapproved drugs."
Last year, however, a three-judge panel of the U.S. appeals court sided with the group.
In a 2-1 decision, it said a "terminally ill, mentally competent adult patient" had a right to "potentially lifesaving investigational new drugs" which had been found to be safe for humans.
But before that decision could take effect, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted to rehear the case. And Tuesday, it reversed its panel's ruling.
"We conclude there is no fundamental right 'deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' of access to experimental drugs for the terminally ill," said Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush appointee, citing a Supreme Court decision that rejected the notion of a constitutional right to die. Griffith's opinion was joined by conservative and liberal members of the appeals court.
The two dissenters were Judge Judith W. Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee.
"In the end, it is startling," Rogers wrote, that the Constitution has been read to include unnamed "fundamental rights" to marry, to control a child's education, to have sex in private and to have an abortion, "but the right to save one's life is left out."
Julie Zawisza, an FDA spokeswoman, said the agency was pleased with the ruling because it upheld the agency's "role in facilitating appropriate treatment access to investigational therapies while at the same time protecting the public at large by requiring that drugs are proven to be safe and effective before they may be marketed to U.S. consumers."
She also said that "on a limited basis," some patients and their doctors were permitted to obtain new drugs that were in clinical trials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student pleads not guilty to hazing charge
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/08/08 13:48
|
A Rider University student pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to an aggravated hazing charge in connection with the binge drinking death of a freshman earlier this spring. Adriano DiDonato, 22, of Princeton, did not speak during the arraignment at the Mercer County Courthouse as his lawyer Paul Norris entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. A second student, Dominic Olsen, 21, of Kenilworth, who was originally scheduled to be arraigned along with DiDonato had his hearing delayed until next week, said Mercer County Prosecutor spokeswoman Casey DeBlasio.
Speaking after the court hearing, Norris said that his client was devastated by the death of Gary DeVercelly Jr., of Long Beach, Calif.
"This is a tragic event and by no means does Adriano minimize what happened here," Norris said. "He's very sad about what happened, as is the rest of the fraternity."
DeVercelly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.426 percent, or more than five times New Jersey's legal limit for driving, when he was pronounced dead March 30 at a Trenton hospital, authorities said. He died one day after drinking at a party at the Phi Kappa Tau house on the private school's campus in central New Jersey.
The party, according to prosecutors, was a special event in which pledges such as DeVercelly would drink with fraternity members. Some of the pledges drank entire bottles of hard liquor in under an hour, prosecutors have said.
Olsen was the pledge master of the fraternity's spring 2007 pledge class, and DiDonato was the fraternity's residence director and house master.
Two school officials and a third student were also charged in connection with DeVercelly's death: Ada Badgley, 31, the university's director of Greek life; Anthony Campbell, 51, the dean of students; and Michael J. Torney, 21, the fraternity chapter president.
The indictments mark one of the first times that university officials have been criminally charged in a suspected hazing death, according Doug Fierberg, a lawyer retained by DeVercelly's parents, who has represented hazing victims since the mid-1990s.
Torney and Campbell were to be arraigned Thursday, while no date had yet been set for Badgley's court appearance, DeBlasio said.
Jonathan Meer, Rider's vice president of university advancement, said Tuesday that no decision had been made about the employment status of the two school officials.
If convicted, the officials and fraternity members would face a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The school dissolved the Phi Kappa Tau chapter last Friday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
