|
|
|
Rick Perry indictment goes before Texas' top criminal court
Topics in Legal News |
2015/11/18 10:29
|
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry wants the state's highest criminal court to dismiss felony charges against him that the Republican has partly blamed for his failed 2016 presidential bid.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will hear arguments Wednesday about whether Perry should stand trial on charges of abusing his power while still governor. He's called the case a politically motivated attack that dampened his short-lived run for the White House.
A grand jury indicted Perry last year for making good on a threat to veto local funds after the Travis County district attorney refused to resign following a drunken-driving conviction.
Perry was originally indicted on two felony counts, but a lower court has already thrown out one of the charges. The court is not expected to rule immediately. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snowboarders fight ban at Utah resort in appeals court
Court Watch |
2015/11/17 10:29
|
A group of snowboarders who argue a ban on their sport at Utah's Alta Ski Area amounts to discrimination are set to present their case Tuesday to a federal appeals court in Denver.
The lawsuit, filed in early 2014, brought renewed attention to the long-festering culture clash on the slopes between skiers and snowboarders.
Alta lawyers have defended the ban, saying resort officials made a business decision to lure skiers to the private resort east of Salt Lake City with the promise of a snowboarder-free experience, and it's well within its rights to keep snowboards off the slopes.
The U.S. Forest Service, which approves a permit for Alta, has backed the ski area in the court battle.
The four snowboarders and their attorneys have countered that Alta doesn't have the right to keep snowboarders off public land designated by Congress for skiing and other sports. They point to 119 other ski resorts that operate on public land that allow snowboarding.
They take issue with Alta's claim that skiers find the slopes safer because they don't have to worry about being hit by snowboarders whose sideways stance leaves them with a blind spot. Alta's ban is irrational and based on stereotypes of snowboarders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court troubled by DA's rejection of black jurors
Court News |
2015/11/04 09:36
|
The Supreme Court signaled support Monday for a black death row inmate in Georgia who claims prosecutors improperly kept African-Americans off the jury that convicted him of killing a white woman.
Justice Stephen Breyer likened the chief prosecutor to his excuse-filled grandson. Justice Elena Kagan said the case seemed as clear a violation "as a court is ever going to see" of rules the Supreme Court laid out in 1986 to prevent racial discrimination in the selection of juries.
At least six of the nine justices indicated during arguments that black people were improperly singled out and kept off the jury that eventually sentenced defendant Timothy Tyrone Foster to death in 1987.
Foster could win a new trial if the Supreme Court rules his way. The discussion Monday also suggested that a technical issue might prevent the justices from deciding the substance of Foster's case.
Georgia Deputy Attorney General Beth Burton had little support on the court for the proposition that prosecutor Stephen Lanier advanced plausible "race-neutral" reasons that resulted in an all-white jury for Foster's trial. Foster was convicted of killing 79-year-old Queen Madge White in her home in Rome, Georgia.
Several justices noted that Lanier's reasons for excusing people from the jury changed over time, including the arrest of the cousin of one black juror. The record in the case indicates that Lanier learned of the arrest only after the jury had been seated. "That seems an out and out false statement," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Breyer drew an analogy with a grandson who was looking for any reason not to do his homework, none of them especially convincing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court considers if Pistorius guilty of murder
Court Watch |
2015/11/04 09:36
|
South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal grilled Oscar Pistorius' attorney and a prosecutor on Tuesday as it weighed whether to convict him of murder for killing his girlfriend, uphold a lower court's manslaughter conviction or order a retrial.
Prosecutors say the North Gauteng High Court erred in convicting Pistorius of the lesser charge, and that the double-amputee Olympian should have known that someone could be killed when he fired four times into a locked toilet cubicle in his home. In the trial last year, prosecutors said Pistorius killed Reeva Steenkamp as she sought shelter in the toilet cubicle during an argument on Valentine's Day 2013. The defense said Pistorius opened fire because he thought an intruder was about to burst out of the toilet.
One of the five appeals court judges noted during the session on Tuesday, broadcast across the country and around the world on live TV, that Pistorius could still be convicted of murder even if he didn't think it was Steenkamp in the cubicle but knew someone was in there. Under the concept of dolus eventualis in South African law, a person can be convicted of murder if they foresaw the possibility of someone dying through their actions and went ahead anyway.
"If you look at the photographs, there's room behind there for a toilet bowl and a person and just about nothing else," Justice Lorimer Leach said to defense lawyer Barry Roux. "There's nowhere to hide. It would be a miracle if you didn't shoot someone."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't hear appeal on mortgage ratings
Headline Legal News |
2015/11/03 09:36
|
The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from shareholders who claim the Standard & Poor's ratings firm made false statements about its ratings of risky mortgage investments that helped trigger the financial crisis.
The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that threw out a lawsuit filed by the Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund against S&P's parent company, McGraw-Hill.
A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that statements about the integrity and credibility of S&P's credit ratings used routine, generic language that did not mislead investors.
The shareholders argued that false statements regarding a central aspect of the company's business were enough to violate federal securities laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
