|
|
|
Cosby defense team lobs attacks in court of public opinion
Lawyer News |
2018/04/19 00:29
|
Jurors weren't allowed to hear testimony that Bill Cosby's chief accuser was once hooked on hallucinogenic mushrooms or had her sights set on becoming a millionaire, but that hasn't stopped the defense from airing the explosive claims about Andrea Constand in the court of public opinion.
With Cosby's sexual assault retrial heading for deliberations this week, the 80-year-old comedian's lawyers and publicists are increasingly playing to an audience of millions, not just the 12 people deciding his fate.
They're hitting at Constand's credibility in the media with attacks that Judge Steven O'Neill is deeming too prejudicial or irrelevant for court, and they're holding daily press briefings portraying Cosby as the victim of an overzealous prosecutor and an unjust legal system.
Cosby spokesman Andrew Wyatt has decried Constand's allegations of drugging and molestation as "fantastical stories" and deemed District Attorney Kevin Steele an "extortionist" for spending taxpayer money on the case.
Lawyer Dennis McAndrews, who's been in court following the retrial, said prominent defendants like Cosby almost always play to the court of public opinion when there's no gag order, but that his team's approach hasn't been "particularly effective or convincing."
"It is so strident, and it is so hyperbolic, I think most people will turn it off," said McAndrews, who prosecuted chemical heir John E. du Pont for murder in 1997 and is not associated with either side in the Cosby case.
O'Neill is expected to rule Monday on what could be the Cosby team's last line of attack in the courtroom: whether jurors can hear deposition testimony that Cosby's lawyers say could have insights into what led Constand to accuse him.
Constand's confidante, Sheri Williams, gave the testimony as part of Constand's 2005 lawsuit against Cosby, which he wound up settling for nearly $3.4 million. Cosby's lawyers said that testimony is vital because Williams is not responding to subpoena attempts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxpayer tab for law firm overseeing Atlantic City hits $4.8M
Headline News |
2018/04/19 00:29
|
New Jersey taxpayers' tab for the takeover of Atlantic City has reached about $5 million in fees from the law firm former Gov. Chris Christie picked to oversee the gambling resort.
Records obtained Thursday by The Associated Press show the firm of Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi billed the state for $4.8 million going back to the November 2016 takeover of the gambling resort. That's up from reports of $4 million from earlier this year.
The disclosure comes days after Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced that government functions overseen by the firm, run by former U.S. senator and Christie ally Jeffrey Chiesa, would revert to the state Department of Community Affairs within 30 days.
Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver, who oversees the department, said the price tag was a factor in the decision.
"The cost was of concern to us and was relevant in our decision to bring Atlantic City oversight responsibilities back into DCA," Oliver said in a statement to the AP.
She added that the department is better equipped than an outside law firm to handle the job and that DCA has traditionally overseen financially distressed towns.
Oliver said she did not have an estimate for what the cost to oversee Atlantic City would be for the department, but predicted it would be "significantly less" than what Chiesa billed.
A message left for Chiesa was not returned.
Murphy's announcement said the action would "ensure economic growth and empowerment" for the city and its residents.
Chiesa's work has gotten mixed reviews. Christie, before he left office in January, praised it as a bargain, and Democrats too have given it some positive reviews.
Democratic Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo, whose district includes Atlantic City, gave Chiesa credit for settling a roughly $160 million bill owed to the Borgata for around $70 million. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rejects anti-abortion pastor's appeal on noise
U.S. Legal News |
2018/04/16 04:22
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a pastor who challenged a state law's noise limit that was used to restrict his anti-abortion protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Portland, Maine.
The justices offered no comment Monday in rejecting the appeal from the Rev. Andrew March. He sued after he said Portland police officers repeatedly told him to lower his voice while he was protesting outside the clinic. March says police invoked a part of the Maine Civil Rights Act that applies to noise outside health facilities.
March says the law "targets pro-life advocates" in violation of the Constitution. A district judge temporarily blocked its enforcement, but the federal appeals court in Boston reversed that ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clicking 'checkout' could cost more after Supreme Court case
Employment Law |
2018/04/15 04:22
|
The Supreme Court is hearing a case this week that could affect how much customers pay for online purchases.
At issue is a rule saying that businesses don't have to collect state sales taxes when those businesses ship to a state where they don't have an office, warehouse or other physical presence.
Large retailers with brick-and-mortar stores have to collect sales taxes nationwide, but smaller online sellers can often avoid doing so.
Large retailers say the rule puts them at a competitive disadvantage. States say they're losing out in billions of dollars in tax revenue.
But small businesses that sell online say the complexity and expense of collecting taxes nationwide could drive them out of business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court again refuses to hear Blagojevich appeal
Attorney Blogs |
2018/04/14 18:23
|
The Supreme Court for the second time has refused to hear an appeal by imprisoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of his corruption convictions.
The justices didn't comment Monday in letting stand the convictions and 14-year prison term the 61-year-old is serving. His scheduled release date is 2024.
Blagojevich's lawyers had wanted the high court to take up his case to make clear what constitutes illegal political fundraising. They argued that politicians are vulnerable to prosecution because the line between what's allowed and what's illegal is blurry.
His convictions included trying to extort a children's hospital for contributions and seeking to trade an appointment to the Senate seat Barack Obama vacated when he was elected president for campaign cash.
The court also refused to hear his 2016 appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zuckerberg Flubs Details of Facebook Privacy Commitments
Class Action News |
2018/04/13 18:31
|
Over two days of questioning in Congress, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg chief revealed that he didn’t know key details of a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission that requires Facebook to protect user privacy.
With congressional hearings over and no immediate momentum behind calls for regulation, the biggest hammer still hanging over Facebook in the U.S. is a fresh FTC investigation . The probe follows revelations that pro-Trump data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica acquired data from the profiles of millions of Facebook users. Facebook also faces inquiries in Europe.
The 2011 agreement bound Facebook to a 20-year privacy commitment , and any violations of that pact could cost Facebook a ton of money, even by its flush-with-cash standards. If Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress is any indication, the company might have something to worry about.
Zuckerberg repeatedly assured lawmakers Tuesday and Wednesday that he believed Facebook is in compliance with that 2011 agreement. But he also flubbed simple factual questions about the consent decree.
“Congresswoman, I don’t remember if we had a financial penalty,” Zuckerberg said under questioning by Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette on Wednesday.
“You’re the CEO of the company, you entered into a consent decree and you don’t remember if you had a financial penalty?” she asked. She then pointed out that the FTC doesn’t have the authority to issue fines for first-time violations.
In response to questioning by Rep. Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania, Zuckerberg acknowledged: “I’m not familiar with all of the things the FTC said.”
Zuckerberg also faced several questions from lawmakers about how long it takes for Facebook to delete user data from its systems. He didn’t know.
The 2011 consent decree capped years of Facebook privacy mishaps, many of which revolved around its early attempts to follow users and their friends around the web. Any violations of the 2011 agreement could subject Facebook to fines of $41,484 per violation per user per day. To put that in context, Facebook could theoretically owe $8 billion for one single day of a violation affecting all of its American users.
The current FTC investigation will look at whether Facebook engaged in “unfair acts” that cause “substantial injury” to consumers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
