|
|
|
Court to explore competency claim of ailing Alabama inmate
Legal Business |
2018/10/02 00:25
|
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in the case of an inmate sentenced to death for killing an Alabama police officer in 1985 but who lawyers say can no longer remember the murder because of stroke-induced dementia.
Justices will decide if it would violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute Vernon Madison, 68, because of the mental declines he has experienced resulting from strokes. Madison was convicted of killing Mobile police officer Julius Schulte in 1985.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said death row prisoners must have "rational understanding" that they are about to be executed and why.
Atorneys for Madison say he has an IQ score of 72, suffers from vascular dementia and memory loss as a result of brain damage from several strokes and "does not remember the crime for which he has been convicted and does not have a rational understanding of why the state of Alabama seeks to execute him."
"The execution of Vernon Madison consequently is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's essential commitment to human dignity," attorney Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative wrote.
Madison's lawyers in court filings described him as a physically and mentally frail man who attended a competency hearing in a wheelchair. They say he is incontinent, legally blind, frequently confused, can no longer recite the alphabet and repeatedly asks for his deceased mother to visit him.
A state court in 2016 ruled that Madison was competent. A neuropsychologist hired by the defense team said that Madison has no independent recollection of the murder. A court-appointed psychologist found that while Madison had suffered a mental and physical decline, he was able to recall details of his case and appeals.
The Alabama attorney general's office cast doubt on the defense description of Madison's mental state in court filings. They argued he claimed as far back as 1990 to have amnesia about the murder and that the court-appointed expert concluded he could recall and understood many details about his life, trial and looming death sentence.
But ultimately, the state argued the Eighth Amendment doesn't prohibit executing someone who lost can't remember their crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stand-ins to decide who sits on West Virginia Supreme Court
Legal Business |
2018/09/25 23:00
|
A group of judicial stand-ins representing West Virginia's Supreme Court was hearing challenges Monday to GOP Gov. Jim Justice's appointments of two Republican politicians to replace two departed justices.
Democrats have called the impeachments that imploded the state's highest court an unprecedented power grab by the West Virginia GOP. One of the petitions being heard on Monday says the choice of U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins and ex-House speaker Tim Armstead violates "the clear will of the voters" who elected Democrats to their spots on the bench.
Justice appointed Jenkins and Armstead — who resigned as speaker of the House of Delegates in anticipation of his move to the court — to serve until a Nov. 6 special election in which both men are candidates.
Also on the November ballot is attorney William Schwartz, whose petition seeks to stop Jenkins and Armstead from temporarily serving on the court. His petition also accuses Jenkins of being ineligible because he hasn't actively practiced law recently. The state constitution requires justices to be admitted to practice law for at least 10 years prior to their election.
Jenkins and Schwartz are seeking to serve the remainder of retired Justice Robin Davis' term through 2024, while Armstead hopes to finish the term of retired Justice Menis Ketchum through 2020. Both Davis and Ketchum were elected as Democrats.
Ketchum resigned before the Republican-led House voted to impeach the remaining four justices. Davis then resigned in time to trigger an election for the remainder of her term. The others await Senate impeachment trials next month, including Allen Loughry, who is suspended, and Margaret Workman and Beth Walker, who recused themselves from hearing these petitions. Temporary Chief Justice Paul T. Farrell then appointed four circuit judges to hear the challenges.
According to Schwartz's petition, Jenkins voluntarily placed his West Virginia law license on inactive status in 2014 after he was elected to the U.S. House. But Jenkins said he's been admitted to practice law in the state for more than three decades. According to the bylaws of the State Bar, an inactive status means members are admitted to practice law but aren't taking clients or providing legal counseling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court upholds hospital 'charity care' tax exemption
Legal Business |
2018/09/23 15:57
|
The Illinois Supreme Court has upheld a 2012 law that sought to clarify property tax exemptions for charitable hospitals.
The court voted 7-0 in an opinion issued Thursday. It ruled on a law that allows issuing tax exemptions to hospitals when the value of the "charity care" or "free or discounted services" they provide exceed its estimated tax liability.
Constance Oswald argued in her lawsuit that the law requires issuing an exemption regardless of whether the constitutional requirements are met. The court found that the language of the law merely allows allowing an exemption in warranted cases.
Illinois Health and Hospital Association spokesman Danny Chun says the law has cleared up previous confusion and ensured financially stretched hospitals can serve their communities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israeli court allows entry to Hamas kin for medical care
Legal Business |
2018/08/31 13:49
|
Israel's Supreme Court has ruled that five critically ill women from Gaza may enter Israel for urgent medical treatment despite a government decision preventing relatives of Hamas members from doing so.
The five women appealed to the court last month after their requests to enter Israel were rejected on the grounds of their relation to Hamas members.
The government decision denies entry for health care to relatives of Hamas members and is meant to exert pressure Gaza's rulers who currently hold the remains of two Israeli soldiers.
The court ruled late Sunday that the government decision was unreasonable and could not stand up to a legal test.
Four human rights groups representing the women said the government was using them and others seeking care unavailable in Gaza as "bargaining chips."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't remove judge, tells Meek Mill to appeal ruling
Legal Business |
2018/08/23 10:39
|
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied a motion from rapper Meek Mill to remove a Philadelphia judge from his case after she denied his request for a new trial.
The court said Tuesday Mill's attorneys must go through the regular process of appealing Judge Genece Brinkley's decision, despite their argument she'd been biased.
Mill, whose real name is Robert Rihmeek Williams, has asked that his decade-old drug and gun convictions be thrown out because of credibility issues with the officer who testified against him. His lawyers noted several other convictions involving the same officer have been thrown out by a different judge and the district attorney's office supported the request.
Mill's attorneys say they will now ask the state Superior Court to hear their appeal. An attorney for Brinkley says the denial is "absolutely no surprise."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
