|
|
|
Texas case before high court to test voting rights
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/26 08:40
|
The community of Canyon Creek was ranchland rich with limestone and cedar trees when Jim Crow held sway in the South. The first house wasn't built until the late 1980s and not even a hint of discrimination attaches to this little slice in suburbia.
President Barack Obama won more than 48 percent of the vote in November in this overwhelmingly white community northwest of the state capital.
Yet Canyon Creek, the heart of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One, is the site of a major Supreme Court battle over the federal government's often used and most effective tool in preventing voting discrimination against minorities. The utility district's elected five-person board manages a local park and pays down bond debt. Because it is in Texas, the board is covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval from the Justice Department before any changes can be made in how elections are conducted. That requirement applies to all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting. The utility district is challenging that section of the law, which Congress extended in 2006 for 25 years. The Obama administration is defending it. The Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. The law "has been the most important and transformative civil rights act in our country's history," said John Payton, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The federal government has used the provision, known as Section 5, to "stop things that would have perverted our democracy," Payton said. His group represents Texans and organizations seeking to preserve the section. On the other side are the utility district, an array of conservative legal groups and some Southern Republicans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civil beating case against Snoop Dogg begins
Court Watch |
2009/04/25 08:47
|
| A man suing Snoop Dogg for millions told a jury Friday that the euphoria of being near one of his idols quickly turned to terror during a 2005 concert when he was savagely beaten. Richard Monroe Jr. claims the rapper, whose real name is Calvin Broadus, hit him with a brass-knuckle microphone after he jumped onstage and put his hand on the performer's shoulder. Broadus sat a few feet away as Monroe described waking up naked, robbed, and in a pool of blood after the beatdown by other performers and the rapper's security detail. A videotape of the incident that occurred at the White River Amphitheater near Seattle was also shown to jurors Friday. Broadus' attorneys said the video doesn't show the blow to the back of the head that Monroe claims the rapper delivered, nor evidence that the rapper should be forced to pay any damages. They told jurors during the trial's opening moments Friday that Broadus' security guards had mere seconds to react when Monroe — who stands 6-feet-3 inches tall and weighs nearly 300 pounds — came on stage unexpectedly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Marine leaves Philippines after court acquittal
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/22 08:41
|
A U.S. Marine whose rape conviction was overturned by the Philippine appeals court has left the country, the U.S. Embassy said Friday.
The news that Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith had "departed the Philippines under the authority of United States military officials" came a day after the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's sentence — a decision that sparked protests, including one Friday in which about 200 demonstrators tried to march to the embassy before they were stopped by police.Three years ago, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for raping a Filipino woman after a night of drinking. The emotional case soon turned into a political tug-of-war between the government — keen on maintaining smooth relations with its key ally — and nationalist, left-wing and women's rights activists eager to showcase that the Philippines can do without U.S. protection. Smith spent only about three weeks in a Philippine jail before U.S. officials obtained custody, arguing that the Visiting Forces Agreement between the two countries allowed them to hold the Marine until his legal appeal was resolved. The U.S. Embassy statement did not say when Smith left the country or where he was headed and the embassy spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for details. "This has been a difficult and emotional case for all involved, especially their families and loved ones. We hope that the parties can now move on with their lives," the statement said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Murtha Immune from Defamation Suit
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/14 13:50
|
Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha is immune from a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the press, allegedly accusing U.S. Marines of slaughtering 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005, the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Murtha damaged his reputation by telling reporters that Wuterich and his fellow Marines massacred civilian men, women and children in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
On Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb detonated, killing a member of Wuterich's squad. Two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing fight. Iraqi witnesses said Marines slaughtered people in the street and in their homes to avenge their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. Charges were brought against eight Marines, including four who were charged with murder. Many of the charges were later dropped.
In the wake of Haditha, Murtha gave a series of interviews to news outlets such as CNN and NPR. Wuterich said the congressman's statements "provide the impression, implicitly or explicitly, that SSgt. Wuterich and others deliberately murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in a cold-blooded massacre" and "inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate wide-spread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam."
Murtha invoked the Westfall Act, which extends absolute immunity to federal employees acting in the course of their official duties. He also pointed to the fact that the attorney general's office had certified that his statements fell within the scope of his duties.
But the district court refused to certify the action under the Westfall Act pending discovery.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the order denying certification and remanded with instructions to substitute the United States for Murtha as the defendant.
Senior Judge Edwards found insufficient evidence that Murtha's actions clearly exceeded the scope of his employment.
Further, Edwards said the case should be dismissed, because "the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Wuterich's tort claims." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't revive Va. anti-spam law
Topics in Legal News |
2009/03/31 09:40
|
The Supreme Court will not consider reinstating Virginia's anti-spam law, among the nation's toughest in banning unsolicited e-mails.
The court on Monday said it will leave in place a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that the law was unconstitutional because it prohibited political, religious and other messages in addition to commercial solicitations.
Virginia was the only state to ban noncommerical spam e-mail. The decision also cements the reversal of the conviction of Jeremy Jaynes, who once was considered one of the world's most prolific spammers. Jaynes bombarded Internet users with millions of pieces of spam, all of it commercial. In 2004, Jaynes became the first person in the U.S. to be convicted of a felony for sending unsolicited bulk e-mail. He was sentenced to nine years but is currently serving time in federal prison on an unrelated conviction for securities fraud. The case is Virginia v. Jaynes, 08-765. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
