|
|
|
Teen Pleads Guilty to Highway Shootings
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/05 10:51
|
A teenager pleaded guilty to reduced charges Monday in a series of Indiana highway sniper shootings that left one man dead and another wounded. Zachariah Blanton, 18, of Gaston, had been scheduled to stand trial next week on charges of murder, attempted murder and criminal recklessness. He pleaded guilty in Jackson Circuit Court to lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness. A judge must still approve Blanton's deal with prosecutors. Sentencing is set for Dec. 27, and Blanton could receive anything between 20 years and 50 years in prison. Prosecutors say Blanton fired his hunting rifle into highway traffic from an overpass about 60 miles south of Indianapolis on July 23, 2006. One of the shots went through a pickup truck's windshield and killed 40-year-old Jerry L. Ross. An Iowa man traveling in another pickup truck was injured. Police say Blanton later shot at cars along another highway northeast of Indianapolis, but no one was injured. Blanton, who was 17 at the time, was arrested at his home two days later. Blanton's defense attorney did not publicly comment after court and did not immediately return a phone call. Blanton confessed to the shooting and provided police with details, police have said. Blanton told police he fired the shots to relieve pressure after he argued with fellow participants in a southern Indiana hunting trip. Blanton confirmed the motive in court Monday. Ross's relatives, wearing "Justice for Jerry" buttons outside the courthouse, said they were unhappy with the deal. His father, 70-year-old Jesse Ross, said a jury should decide Blanton's fate. "Twelve people would be about as fair as it could be, it couldn't get no better than that," he said. "I don't think this is right, the way they're doing it. All we want is a fair trial because you can't bring nothing back." Blanton "committed those crimes, he should be standing trial for them," said Jerry's twin brother, Terry Ross, who was in the truck with his brother when he was shot. "He didn't give Jerry any kind of a deal." Prosecutor Rick Poynter said he had to make the deal based on the strength of his case. He noted that the judge had ruled that statements Blanton gave police were inadmissible. If Blanton had been convicted of murder, he could have faced 45 to 65 years in prison. But Poynter said the jury also could have acquitted him or found him guilty of reckless homicide, a lesser crime punishable by two to eight years in prison. Poynter said that although he understood the family's reaction, "I think they would be a lot more emotional if the killer of their loved one walked out of jail in four years." |
|
|
|
|
|
NJ top court upholds killer's death sentence
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/04 14:12
|
A unanimous state Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the death sentence for Ambrose Harris, ruling that the special circumstances that removed another killer from death row did not apply to Harris. The 7-0 decision rejected the latest appeal by Harris, finding that the inmate could not muster a majority of sitting justices who had sided with him on prior appeals. The ruling, however, may have little practical effect for Harris and the seven other inmates on the state's death row at New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, since New Jersey may be on the verge of scrapping the death penalty.
Harris was represented by the state public defender's office, which had no immediate comment.
The attorney general's office had no immediate comment.
Harris, 55, had been sentenced to death in 1996 for murdering Kristin Huggins, 22, of Lower Makefield, Pa., whom he kidnapped and raped in 1992.
The Harris ruling is based on a July 2006 decision in which the state Supreme Court overturned the death sentence for Anthony DiFrisco, a hit man who said he was paid $2,500 to shoot a Maplewood pizzeria owner in 1986.
DiFrisco's successful appeal centered on complex procedural issues involving the type and timing of reviews afforded in capital cases. The ruling determined that DiFrisco's death sentence must be overturned because a majority of justices had voted _ at various times and for various reasons _ to sentence him to life in prison.
The court did not find the same circumstances existed for Harris. It noted that to find four justices who had voted to overturn his death penalty, Harris essentially counted one justice twice.
While in prison in September 1999, Harris killed a fellow death row inmate, kicking and stomping 48-year-old Robert "Mudman" Simon to death. A jury in 2001 found that Harris acted in self-defense and found him innocent of murder and manslaughter charges.
On Monday, New Jersey moved closer to becoming the first state to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976 when a Senate committee approved replacing capital punishment with life in prison without parole. The full Senate is to consider the bill before the legislative session ends on Jan. 8, and the bill should get a vote by the full Assembly this month. Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a death penalty foe, supports the bill.
New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982, but hasn't executed anyone since 1963. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pledge, Motto Cases to Be Heard by Court
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/04 14:08
|
An atheist seeking to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court. Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case. A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust." In 2005, Newdow sued Congress and several federal officials, arguing that making money with the motto on it violated the First Amendment clause requiring the separation of church and state. Last year, a federal judge in Sacramento disagreed, saying the words did not violate Newdow's atheism. Newdow appealed. Congress first authorized a reference to God on a two-cent piece in 1864. In 1955, the year after lawmakers added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. currency to carry the motto "In God We Trust." |
|
|
|
|
|
Court Rejects Mental Health Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/03 15:16
|
A Mississippi death row inmate whose lawyer had never tried a case and suffered from mental illness failed Monday to persuade the Supreme Court to take his case. The court did not comment in denying the appeal from Quintez Hodges, who was sentenced to death in 2001 for killing his ex-girlfriend's brother two years earlier. Hodges presented evidence that his attorney, Michael Miller, was abusing drugs around the time of his trial and suffered from mental illness. A little over a year after Hodges' trial, Miller's parents had him committed to a psychiatric hospital. The state said Mississippi courts examined Hodges' claims and determined they lacked merit. "Miller's commitment papers...clearly show that this was his first commitment," state Attorney General Jim Hood told the court. Under prior Supreme Court rulings, defendants have to show that their lawyer was deficient and that the outcome probably would have been different with competent representation. |
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. rights stance faces big test in Guantanamo case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/03 12:17
|
The tarnished U.S. human rights image faces a major test this week as the Supreme Court considers whether terrorism suspects held for years without charges at Guantanamo Bay are wrongly detained. The court's nine justices on Wednesday are to hear the appeal of Guantanamo prisoners who say a 2006 law unconstitutionally denies them a meaningful way to challenge in court their detention at the U.S. Naval Base on Cuba. The case is being watched by governments and human rights activists around the world, who say President George W. Bush has overreached his powers and trampled on rights in the war on terrorism he launched after the September 11, 2001, attacks. "The rule-of-law, humanitarian and human rights principles at stake in this case are the very principles which the coalition of liberal democracies together seek to uphold and defend in the 'war on terror,'" British and European parliament members said in one of the many outside briefs urging the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the detainees. The Bush administration told the court the Guantanamo prisoners receive fair treatment and a chance to make their case before a military tribunal, with a limited appeals court review. But it said the Constitution's "habeas corpus" rights for prisoners to seek a court review of their detention do not apply to foreigners held outside the country. "The detainees now enjoy greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war. Yet they claim an entitlement to more," the Justice Department said in its brief on the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Guilty Plea in Navy Bid Rigging Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/12/01 17:20
|
A metal sling manufacturing company has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rig bids on U.S. Navy contracts, the federal officials said. Authorities said Certified Slings Inc. rigged bids for manufacturing metal sling hoist assemblies, which are used to transport items such as bombs and other munitions. The central Florida-based company also agreed to pay a $150,000 fine, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday. The plea was made in the U.S. District Court in Islip, N.Y. Certified Slings was part of a conspiracy to rig bids from December 2002 to October 2003, where "conspirators discussed and agreed among themselves which of them would win contracts from the U.S. Navy," the statement said. A telephone message and e-mail left for the company by The Associated Press were not immediately returned Thursday night. Four others have also been charged as a result of the investigation. Pennsylvania executives Thomas Cunningham and Richard Barko pleaded guilty to rigging bids on U.S. Navy contracts in February and are currently awaiting sentencing. In July, the former sales director of a New York-based company, Robert Fischetti, pleaded guilty to two counts of participating in separate conspiracies to rig bids on military equipment. Roger Jacobi, the president of another New York-based company was charged with conspiring to rig bids on DOD contracts in September. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|