|
|
|
Au pair charged in double homicide pleads guilty to manslaughter
Business Law Info |
2024/11/03 22:13
|
A Brazilian au pair who fell in love with an IRS agent pleaded guilty to manslaughter on Tuesday in what prosecutors say was an elaborate double-murder scheme to frame another man in the stabbing of his wife.
For months after the killings on Feb. 24, 2023, it might have seemed as if Juliana Peres Magalhães and the IRS agent, Brendan Banfield, got away with murders, according to new details prosecutors revealed in court to support her guilty plea.
Christine Banfield, a pediatric intensive care nurse with a 4-year-old daughter, had been mortally wounded with stab wounds to her neck, and Brendan Banfield, her husband, and their live-in nanny both said they shot her apparent killer — a man who had been lured to the bedroom with promises of rough sex.
Magalhães had called 911 to the house in Herndon, Virginia, and was hyperventilating at the scene as she described the killings. Detectives weren’t buying it — but it took time to build their case. Meanwhile, the live-in au pair moved into the primary bedroom with Banfield and posted photos of them as a couple, authorities said. When she was arrested in October 2023, a picture of herself with Brendan Banfield was on the nightstand.
As she remained in jail for more than a year thereafter, she declined to say anything more.
A long-awaited forensics report on the blood spatter evidence then came in, and prosecutors said it showed that Brendan Banfield had smeared blood from Christine Banfield’s wounds onto the body of Joe Ryan, the man they had tried to frame for stabbing her. Authorities arrested Brendan Banfield in September on charges of aggravated murder.
Banfield’s lawyer, John F. Carroll, said in court before he was denied bail in September that the evidence “just doesn’t add up” to him killing his wife.
In October, Magalhães agreed to cooperate with the police in her second interview since the day of the crime. Days later, on Tuesday, two weeks before she was scheduled to go to trial on charges of second-degree murder and felony firearm use, Magalhães pleaded guilty to Ryan’s killing, saying she had agreed to help the husband’s ruse to kill the wife and make it look like they both shot a predator.
“Are you entering your guilty plea because you are in fact guilty of this offense?” Chief Judge Penney Azcarate asked Magalhães before accepting her plea to a single count of manslaughter, reduced from murder and a firearm offense.
“Yes,” she replied, softly.
The sentencing of Magalhães, who was raised in the outskirts of Sao Paulo, now awaits the conclusion of Brendan Banfield’s trial. Depending on her cooperation with authorities, attorneys said in court that they may agree for her to be sentenced to the time she’s already served.
“Much of the information that led to this agreement cannot be made public at this time, due to the upcoming criminal trial against the other defendant in this matter,” Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New rules regarding election certification in Georgia to get test in court
Business Law Info |
2024/09/30 14:33
|
Two controversial new rules passed by Georgia’s State Election Board concerning the certification of vote tallies are set to face their first test in court this week.
The Republican majority on the State Election Board — made up of three members praised by former President Donald Trump praised by name at a recent rally — voted to approve the rules last month. Democrats filed a legal challenge and argue the rules could be used “to upend the statutorily required process for certifying election results in Georgia.”
A bench trial, meaning there is a judge but no jury, is set to begin Tuesday before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney.
One of the rules provides a definition of certification that includes requiring county officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before certifying results, but it does not specify what that means. The other includes language allowing county election officials “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections.”
A series of recent appointments means Trump-endorsed Republicans have had a 3-2 majority on the State Election Board since May. That majority has passed several new rules over the past two months that have caused worry among Democrats and others who believe Trump and his allies may use them to cause confusion and cast doubt on the results if he loses this crucial swing state to Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in November’s presidential election.
Another rule the board passed more recently requires that poll workers count the number of paper ballots — not votes — by hand on election night after voting ends. A separate lawsuit filed by a group headed by a former Republican lawmaker initially challenged the two certification rules but was amended last week to also challenge the ballot counting rule and some others that the board passed.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and an association of county election officials had cautioned the state board against passing new rules so close to the election. They argued it could cause confusion among poll workers and voters and undermine public trust in the voting process.
The challenge to the certification rules filed by Democratic groups and others asks the judge to confirm that election superintendents — a multi-person election board in most counties — have a duty to certify an election by the deadline provided in the law and have no discretion to withhold or delay certification. They ask that it should be declared invalid if the judge believes either of the rules allows such discretion.
Lawyers for the State Election Board argue the Democrats are asking the judge to “declare what is already enshrined in Georgia law,” that county certification is mandatory and must occur by 5 p.m. the Monday after the election, or the next day if Monday is a holiday, as it is this year. They also argue the challenge is barred by the principle of sovereign immunity and seeks relief that isn’t appropriate under the law.
The challenge was filed by the state and national Democratic parties, as well as county election board members from counties in metro Atlanta, most chosen by the local Democratic Party, as well voters who support Democrats and two Democratic state lawmakers running for reelection. It was filed against the State Election Board, and the state and national Republican parties joined the fight on the board’s side.
The Democrats concede in their challenge that the two rules “could be read not to conflict with Georgia statutes” but they argue “that is not what the drafters of those rules intended.”
“According to their drafters, these rules rest on the assumption that certification of election results by a county board is discretionary and subject to free-ranging inquiry that may delay certification or render it wholly optional,” they wrote in a court filing.
They also note that numerous county election officials around the state have already sought to block or delay certification in recent elections and “the new rules hand those officials new tools to do so again in November.”
State lawyers argue that since the argument against the rules is based on the alleged intent of the people who presented them or the way some officials could interpret them, rather than on the text of the rules themselves, the challenge should be thrown out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court rebuffs plea to restore multibllliou-dollar student debt plan
Business Law Info |
2024/08/31 20:35
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday kept on hold the latest multibillion-dollar plan from the Biden administration that would have lowered payments for millions of borrowers, while lawsuits make their way through lower courts.
The justices rejected an administration request to put most of it back into effect. It was blocked by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In an unsigned order, the court said it expects the appeals court to issue a fuller decision on the plan “with appropriate dispatch.”
The Education Department is seeking to provide a faster path to loan cancellation, and reduce monthly income-based repayments from 10% to 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income. The plan also wouldn’t require borrowers to make payments if they earn less than 225% of the federal poverty line — $32,800 a year for a single person.
Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rejected an earlier plan that would have wiped away more than $400 billion in student loan debt.
Cost estimates of the new SAVE plan vary. The Republican-led states challenging the plan peg the cost at $475 billion over 10 years. The administration cites a Congressional Budget Office estimate of $276 billion.
Two separate legal challenges to the SAVE plan have been making their way through federal courts. In June, judges in Kansas and Missouri issued separate rulings that blocked much of the administration’s plan. Debt that already had been forgiven under the plan was unaffected.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that allowed the department to proceed with a provision allowing for lower monthly payments. Republican-led states had asked the high court to undo that ruling.
But after the 8th Circuit blocked the entire plan, the states had no need for the Supreme Court to intervene, the justices noted in a separate order issued Wednesday.
The Justice Department had suggested the Supreme Court could take up the legal fight over the new plan now, as it did with the earlier debt forgiveness plan. But the justices declined to do so.
“This is a recipe for chaos across the student loan system,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group.
“No court has decided on the merits here, but despite all of that borrowers are left in this limbo state where their rights don’t exist for them,” Pierce said.
Eight million people were already enrolled in the SAVE program when it was paused by the lower court, and more than 10 million more people are looking for ways to afford monthly payments, he said.
Sheng Li, litigation counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal group funded by conservative donors, applauded the order. “There was no basis to lift the injunction because the Department of Education’s newest loan-cancellation program is just as unlawful as the one the Court struck down a year ago,” he said in a statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court revives Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit against The New York Times
Business Law Info |
2024/08/29 03:35
|
A federal appeals court revived Sarah Palin’s libel case against The New York Times on Wednesday, citing errors by a lower court judge, particularly his decision to dismiss the lawsuit while a jury was deliberating.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan wrote that Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s decision in February 2022 to dismiss the lawsuit mid-deliberations improperly intruded on the jury’s work.
It also found that the erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury tainted the jury’s decision to rule against Palin. It declined, however, to grant Palin’s request to force Rakoff off the case on grounds he was biased against her. The 2nd Circuit said she had offered no proof.
The libel lawsuit by Palin, a onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and former governor of Alaska, centered on the newspaper’s 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting, which Palin asserted damaged her reputation and career.
The Times acknowledged its editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected errors it called an “honest mistake” that were never meant to harm Palin.
Shane Vogt, a lawyer for Palin, said in an email that Palin was “very happy with today’s decision, which is a significant step forward in the process of holding publishers accountable for content that misleads readers and the public in general.”
“The truth deserves a level playing field, and Governor Palin looks forward to presenting her case to a jury that is ‘provided with relevant proffered evidence and properly instructed on the law,’” Vogt added, quoting in part from the 2nd Circuit ruling.
Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, said the decision was disappointing. “We’re confident we will prevail in a retrial,” he said in an email.
The 2nd Circuit, in a ruling written by Judge John M. Walker Jr., reversed the jury verdict, along with Rakoff’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit while jurors were deliberating.
Despite his ruling, Rakoff let jurors finish deliberating and render their verdict, which went against Palin.
The appeals court noted that Rakoff’s ruling made credibility determinations, weighed evidence, and ignored facts or inferences that a reasonable juror could plausibly find supported Palin’s case.
It also described how “push notifications” that reached the cellphones of jurors “came as an unfortunate surprise to the district judge.” The 2nd Circuit said it was not enough that the judge’s law clerk was assured by jurors that Rakoff’s ruling had not affected their deliberations.
“Given a judge’s special position of influence with a jury, we think a jury’s verdict reached with the knowledge of the judge’s already-announced disposition of the case will rarely be untainted, no matter what the jurors say upon subsequent inquiry,” the appeals court said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court filings provide additional details of the US’ first nitrogen gas execution
Business Law Info |
2024/08/02 04:51
|
A corrections officer who helped carry out the nation’s first nitrogen gas execution said in a court document that the inmate had normal blood oxygen levels for longer than he expected before the numbers suddenly plummeted.
Another court document indicated that the nitrogen gas was flowing for at least 10 minutes during the execution. The documents filed last month in ongoing litigation provided additional details of the execution of Kenneth Smith, who was the first person put to death using nitrogen gas.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office maintains the high oxygen readings indicate that Smith held his breath as the nitrogen gas flowed, causing the execution to take longer than expected. But attorneys for another inmate said the state has no proof to back up that claim and is trying to “explain away” an execution that went horribly awry.
As the state of Alabama plans additional nitrogen gas executions, questions and disagreements continue over what happened at the first one. A federal judge on Tuesday will hear arguments in a request to block the state from executing Alan Miller by nitrogen gas in September in what would be the nation’s second nitrogen execution.
Media witnesses to Smith’s execution, including The Associated Press, said that Smith shook on the gurney for several minutes before taking a series of gasping breaths. Alabama had assured a federal judge before the execution that the new execution method would quickly cause unconsciousness and death.
A pulse oximeter showed that Smith had oxygen levels of 97% to 98% for a “period of time that was longer than I had expected,” the corrections captain said in a sworn statement. The corrections captain said he did not observe Smith make any violent or convulsive movements, but he did tense up and raise his body off the gurney. After “he released a deep breath,” the oxygen levels began dropping, the corrections captain said.
“The best explanation of the testimony is that Smith held his breath and lost consciousness when he breathed nitrogen gas — not that the mask did not fit or that the nitrogen was impure,” the Alabama attorney general’s office wrote in a court filing.
Attorneys for Miller responded that the state has no evidence to back up that claim and said it would be impossible for someone to hold their breath for as long as the execution took. Instead, they suggested other problems with the mask accounted for the delay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republican challenge to New York's mail voting expansion
Business Law Info |
2024/07/27 11:51
|
New York’s highest court heard arguments Tuesday in a Republican challenge of a law that allows any registered voter to cast a mail-in ballot during the early voting period.
The case, which is led by Rep. Elise Stefanik and includes other lawmakers and the Republican National Committee, is part of a widespread GOP effort to tighten voting rules after the 2020 election.
Democrats approved the mail voting expansion law last year. The Republican challenge argues that it violates voting provisions in the state Constitution.
The hourlong arguments before the New York Court of Appeals in Albany hinged on technical readings of the Constitution, specifically whether certain passages would allow for the state Legislature to expand mail voting access.
At certain points in the hearing, judges quizzed attorneys on whether a constitutional provision that says eligible voters are entitled to vote “at every election” would mean a physical polling place or simply the election in general.
Michael Y. Hawrylchak, an attorney representing the Republicans, said that provision “presupposes a physical place” for in-person voting. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey W. Lang, who is representing the state, said the phrase “just refers to a process of selecting an office holder” and not any physical polling place.
Democrats first tried to expand mail voting through a constitutional amendment in 2021, but voters rejected the proposal after a campaign from conservatives who said it would lead to voter fraud.
Lower courts have dismissed the Republican lawsuit in decisions that said the Legislature has the constitutional authority to make rules on voting and the Constitution doesn’t require voting specifically to occur in person on election day.
It is unclear when the Court of Appeals will rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
