|
|
|
O.J. Simpson back in court to enter plea
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/29 16:12
|
O.J. Simpson arrived this morning at a Las Vegas courtroom, where he and two codefendants are expected to plead not guilty to 12 charges stemming from the alleged robbery of two men who traffic in sports memorabilia.
Accompanied by his lawyers, Simpson flashed a smile at television cameras as he entered the building to deal with his latest confrontation with the legal system. Wearing a suit in an elegant shade of gray, he seemed at ease, sitting on a railing and smiling as he talked to people in the courtroom.
Simpson, the former football star, actor and pitchman, is perhaps best known for being acquitted in 1995 for the murders of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman.
In the current case, Simpson, 60, who now lives in Miami, is charged with kidnapping, armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, coercion and conspiracy charges in connection with a Sept. 13 confrontation with the sports dealers. If convicted, Simpson could face life in prison on the kidnapping charge and mandatory prison time on the robbery charge.
Simpson has maintained that he entered the hotel room to recover personal property that had been stolen by a former agent. The prosecution alleges that Simpson and his colleagues took tens of thousands of dollars of sports collectibles not tied to the star.
The arraignment of Simpson with Clarence Stewart, 53, and Charles Ehrlich, 53, is a pro forma step after a justice of the peace ruled two weeks ago that there was enough evidence for them to be tried.
Clark County District Court Judge Jackie Glass is expected to set a trial date for next year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suspect pleads not guilty to shooting into truck
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/29 13:16
|
| A man accused of shooting at his ex-girlfriend's truck in Livermore pleaded not guilty Wednesday. Neal Kuopus also passed on his right to a preliminary hearing, thereby sending the case closer to a trial date. Kuopus appeared briefly in Alameda County Superior Court and let his attorney, deputy public defender Norma Rivera, speak for him. Rivera asked him several questions to confirm that he understood he had a right to a preliminary hearing, where a judge must decide that a crime happened and that the defendant probably was involved. The decision to skip the hearing was somewhat of a surprise, because according to court documents, Rivera and deputy district attorney Michael Roemer previously came to an agreement that Kuopus would plead guilty to one of the charges in exchange for a prison sentence of as many as three years, as well as five years of probation. Rivera declined to comment on the case. Roemer said he could not comment specifically on the case, either. Roemer said it has become more common to bypass a preliminary hearing. Kuopus is accused of firing a gun at his ex-girlfriend several times Sept. 9 before escaping in the woman's truck. He was arrested three days later after a neighbor spotted him at his home. He faces three felony counts of shooting into an occupied vehicle. Police said Kuopus, 56, shot at the woman after she came to his home in the 4800 block of Mulqueeney Common to reclaim possession of her truck.
After an argument inside his home, police say, he followed her out as she got inside a vehicle with her friends. Both shots missed all three people inside, but one shattered a window. No one was hurt and the victims were able to drive away and call police. Kuopus is set to appear in court in Hayward Dec. 11 for an arraignment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer in Katrina Case Faces Bribery Charge
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/29 13:16
|
| An attorney who helped negotiate a multibillion-dollar settlement against tobacco companies in the 1990s and has sued insurers over unpaid Hurricane Katrina claims was indicted Wednesday in a suspected scheme to bribe a Mississippi judge. The indictment accuses Richard "Dickie" Scruggs of conspiring to pay the judge $50,000 to rule in his favor in a lawsuit brought by other attorneys who sought fees for work on Katrina insurance litigation. Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey reported the "bribery overture" to federal authorities and agreed to assist investigators in an "undercover capacity," according to the indictment. Scruggs was indicted along with three other attorneys, including his son, who is his law partner, and a former Mississippi auditor. They face charges including one count of defrauding the federal government and two counts of wire fraud. "I'm convinced that these guys did not do what they're accused of doing," said Joey Langston, a lawyer for Scruggs' firm. Also named as defendants in the indictment are Zach Scruggs; Sidney Backstrom, a lawyer in Scruggs' firm; Timothy Balducci, a New Albany, Miss.-based lawyer; and former state auditor Steven Patterson, who works with Balducci. Patterson resigned as auditor in 1996 after he was accused of lying on state documents to avoid paying taxes on a car tag. Scruggs turned himself in to authorities Wednesday afternoon at a federal building in Oxford, Miss., where the grand jury handed up the indictments earlier in the day, Langston said. After their arraignment Wednesday, Richard Scruggs was released on $100,000 bail, while Zach Scruggs and Patterson each were freed on $50,000 bail. Langston said Backstrom is expected to be arraigned Thursday, but he couldn't say when Balducci is expected to appear in court. Langston said it was too early for him to comment on the details of the allegations. "Right now, we've just got to get our arms around it," he said. Richard Scruggs, whose brother-in-law is Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., earned millions from asbestos litigation and from his role in brokering a multibillion-dollar settlement with tobacco companies in the mid-1990s. His case against the tobacco companies was portrayed in the 1999 movie "The Insider," starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. After Katrina hit on Aug. 29, 2005, the Gulf Coast native sued insurers on behalf of hundreds of policyholders whose claims were denied after the storm. On Tuesday, FBI agents searched Scruggs law offices and left with copies of computer hard drives, Langston said. The alleged bribery scheme stems from a lawsuit filed in March against Scruggs by a Jackson, Miss., law firm, Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson & Lee in a dispute over $26.5 million in attorneys' fees. Scruggs created a legal team called the Scruggs Katrina Group to represent policyholders who sued their insurers after the hurricane. In January, Scruggs' legal team reached a mass settlement of suits with State Farm Insurance Cos. that involved more than $26 million in lawyers' fees. The lawsuit accuses Scruggs of trying to "freeze out" lawyers from the Jackson law firm, including senior partner John G. Jones, and pay it a "ridiculously low figure" for its "substantial" work. After the suit was filed, Balducci is accused of having several meetings and conversations with Lackey in which Balducci agreed to pay the judge for ruling in favor of Scruggs in the case, according to the indictment. Scruggs allegedly tried to cover up the scheme by falsely creating documents that showed he hired Balducci to work on an unrelated case, when he was actually reimbursing him for the cash bribes, the indictment said. The indictment includes excerpts of telephone conversations between Balducci and the judge that were presumably recorded by federal authorities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ford Agrees to Settle Rollover Case
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/29 01:03
|
| Ford Motor Co has agreed to settle class-action litigation covering plaintiffs in four states who claimed its Explorer sport utility vehicles were prone to rollovers, Ford said on Wednesday. "From Ford's position, we believe the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the best in interests of our customers and our shareholders," Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said. A preliminary approval hearing was scheduled for Monday, Kinley said, but declined to estimate the cost to Ford. The settlement applies to about 1 million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas, according to the Associated Press, which cited Kevin Roddy, a New Jersey attorney and co-counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit. The attorney, who could not immediately be reached, told the AP that the settlement would be filed later on Wednesday in Sacramento County Superior Court. It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln Mercury products. The settlements apply to Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, Roddy said in the report. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge removed after jailing entire court room
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/28 15:53
|
| A judge who jailed 46 people who were in his courtroom when a cell phone call interrupted proceedings was removed from the bench Tuesday by a state commission. Niagara Falls City Court Judge Robert Restaino "snapped" and "engaged in what can only be described as two hours of inexplicable madness" during the March 2005 session, Raoul Felder, chairman of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, wrote in the decision to remove Restaino from the $113,900-per-year post. A phone rang while Restaino was hearing the cases of domestic violence offenders who had been ordered to appear weekly to update the judge on the progress of their counseling. A sign in the courthouse warns that cell phones and pagers must be turned off. "Everyone is going to jail," Restaino said. "Every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going." When no one came forward, Restaino ordered the group into custody, and they were taken to jail, where they were searched and packed into crowded cells. Fourteen people who could not post bail were shackled and bused to another jail. Restaino ordered them released later that afternoon. Restaino told the state panel he had been under stress in his personal life. His attorney, Terrence Connors, said Restaino would appeal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court hears case of lost 401(k) funds
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/11/27 16:01
|
Although U.S. workers can invest money in a retirement fund sponsored by their employer, it is not clear whether they can sue to recover money lost because of mistakes by the fund's administrator.
That issue came before the Supreme Court on Monday in a case that could shape the pension rights of 70 million employees.
The case began when James LaRue, a management consultant from Texas, said he lost $150,000 from his 401(k) retirement account when the plan's administrators ignored his instructions to move his money from a high-risk stock fund into government bonds in 2001. LaRue sued his employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, but his claim was thrown out before a trial because, according to the lower courts, the federal law governing pensions and benefits does not allow individuals to sue over losses in their retirement accounts.
His case prompted the high court to reexamine the federal pension law in an era when employees -- not their employers -- are responsible for deciding where their retirement funds will be invested.
In 1974, Congress adopted federal rules for employer-sponsored pension funds and health benefits in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In the decades since, the high court has interpreted this worker-protection law to bar employees from suing their employers over benefit claims. For example, the court said employees and their families could not sue for damages if their healthcare plan refused to pay for a needed medical treatment.
During Monday's oral argument, the justices seemed divided over whether to allow employees like LaRue to sue over losses in their retirement funds.
Under the 1974 law, the sponsors for a pension plan who breach its trust can be sued and forced to pay for "any losses to the plan." But the lawyer for LaRue's employer said that did not refer to individual claims. It refers to "something systemic, something that affects the interests of the plan as a whole rather than just one individual participant," said Thomas Gies.
He and other business lawyers warned that opening the door to lawsuits over investment losses could prove very costly to employers -- and could even encourage some of them to drop their retirement plans.
Bush administration lawyers joined the case on the side of LaRue. They said the 1974 law was intended to protect the pensions of workers. "It is thus hard to imagine that Congress would have left participants and beneficiaries who have been injured by a breach of [trust] duties without any effective federal remedy," said U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief to the court.
A huge sum of money is potentially at issue, Clement noted. In the first quarter of this year, so-called defined contribution plans, to which employees contribute their own money, held about $3.3 trillion in assets, according to the Federal Reserve Board.
Representing LaRue was Peter K. Stris, a law professor at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa. He said the "plain text" of the 1974 law allows suits when trustees breach their duty, and that is what occurred in this case. This is "a make-whole remedy for . . . losses that are caused by a breach of trust," he said, not an open-ended claim for damages against the employer.
While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia seemed skeptical of LaRue's right to sue, Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer appeared equally skeptical of his employer's claim that no lawsuits are allowed.
And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who usually casts the deciding vote when the court is closely split, was uncharacteristically quiet during the hourlong argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
