|
|
|
Court reinstates rape charges despite delay in indictment
Topics in Legal News |
2016/07/28 12:26
|
The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated rape and kidnapping charges against a Cleveland man who argued that a 20-year delay in indicting him was unconstitutional.
In a unanimous decision, the court also ordered an appeals court to reconsider the arguments of defendant Demetrius Jones using a different legal standard.
In a twist, the ruling in the closely watched case was praised by attorneys on both sides. Jones' lawyer said ordering the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals to apply the different standard gives his client a new and stronger chance to fight the charges.
The state also applauded the decision after arguing that the dismissal of the charges by the appeals court last year created a legal precedent jeopardizing thousands of unsolved rapes being reinvestigated thanks to improved DNA testing.
"This ruling affirms law enforcement's ability to use new DNA technologies to bring criminals to justice," said Dan Tierney, a spokesman for Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine.
At issue was the 2013 indictment of Jones on a rape charge based on evidence found when an old rape kit was tested. Jones was accused of raping a woman he knew at his mother's apartment in 1993, according to Ohio Supreme Court documents.
The woman identified Jones to police and at the hospital where a rape kit was obtained, Russell Bensing, Jones' attorney, said in a court filing last fall.
Cleveland police set the investigation aside after two unsuccessful attempts to interview the accuser the following week and never tried to locate Jones or his mother, Bensing said.
Jones was indicted in 2013, one day before the deadline for prosecuting a case that old. His attorneys successfully asked a judge to throw out the case because the state took too long, and last year the appeals court upheld the decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't reinstate church official's conviction
Topics in Legal News |
2016/07/28 12:26
|
The first U.S. church official convicted over his handling of priest-abuse complaints could soon leave prison after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed Tuesday that his conviction was flawed.
Monsignor William Lynn, who served two cardinals at the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, has been imprisoned for almost three years for child endangerment.
But the high court Tuesday declined to reinstate his 2012 conviction. A lower appeals court had found the trial judge allowed too much indirect testimony from other church-abuse victims.
Defense lawyer Tom Bergstrom will ask that his client be released this week. Lynn, 65, has nearly served the minimum of his three- to six-year term.
"He was in the middle of this thing, by direction of the cardinal," Bergstrom said. "He was thrown into this melting pot of awfulness, without a whole lot of experience (and) without a whole lot of education. ... And he did his best."
Prosecutors after two grand jury investigations found that Lynn played a key role helping the archdiocese transfer known pedophile-priests through his job as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004.
The trial revealed that his bosses kept a half century of abuse complaints in secret, locked files under Lynn's control and that he reviewed them to compile lists of suspected pedophiles.
Lynn was charged, though, with enabling the abuse of a single, 10-year-old altar boy by a priest transferred to the parish despite other complaints.
Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, in sentencing Lynn, said he had "enabled monsters in clerical garb ... to destroy the souls of children."
Lynn's novel case has reached the state Supreme Court twice, and he has been in and out of prison amid several rounds of appeals.
Prosecutors could ask to retry the case. A spokesman for District Attorney Seth Williams said the office would review its options.
Lynn, during several grueling days on the stand, said he tried his best but "my best was not good enough."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor chosen to oversee Ferguson's police, court reforms
Topics in Legal News |
2016/07/27 12:26
|
A federal judge on Monday chose a monitor team to oversee reforms of Ferguson's policing and court system, a process expected to cost the St. Louis suburb more than $1 million.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry announced that Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm based in Cleveland, was picked from four finalists to make sure reforms are adequate in Ferguson. City officials say the cost of the monitoring will not exceed $1.25 million over five years, or $350,000 for any single year.
The team will be led by Clark Ervin, who was inspector general for the U.S. State Department and Homeland Security before becoming a partner at Squire Patton Boggs.
A consent decree between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice, approved by Perry in April, calls for diversity training for police, outfitting officers and jail workers with body cameras, and other reforms.
"I'm excited that both the City of Ferguson and the Department of Justice have worked together to complete the process of choosing an Independent Monitor," Ferguson City Manager De'Carlon Seewood said in a statement. "This is a true testament that the collaboration between both parties had a mission and that is to do what's best for the Ferguson community and its police department."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court delay requested in ex-Virginia governor's case
Topics in Legal News |
2016/07/26 12:27
|
Prosecutors have asked a federal appeals court to delay action for 30 days on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's corruption case — to allow both sides time to analyze it.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch reportsthe U.S. Attorney's Office said the motion filed jointly Thursday proposes that parties file a briefing schedule or update the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on discussions after 30 days.
McDonnell was convicted in 2014 of doing favors for a wealthy businessman in exchange for more than $165,000 in gifts and loans.
The Supreme Court overturned McDonnell's conviction in June, saying his actions were distasteful but didn't necessarily violate federal bribery laws. The case was returned to the lower court to decide whether there's enough evidence for another trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philippine court clears Arroyo of plunder, orders her freed
Topics in Legal News |
2016/07/25 12:27
|
The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plunder case against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and ordered her freed immediately after nearly five years of hospital detention — a decision the grateful ex-leader indicated can help her deal with those who "through self-serving interpretation and implementation of the law" made her suffer.
The 15 justices voted 11-4 to grant Arroyo's petition seeking to dismiss the case before the special anti-graft Sandiganbayan court because of insufficient evidence, Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te said. The case involved the alleged misuse of 366 million pesos ($7.8 million) from the state lottery agency, the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
Arroyo thanked the court "for finally stopping the persecution I had unjustly gone through the last five years" and President Rodrigo Duterte "for allowing due process to take its course."
She released a statement while still detained in the hospital, with the serving of the court's order for an immediate release apparently delayed by paperwork.
"It is my fervent hope that nobody else will suffer the persecution that had been levied on me through self-serving interpretation and implementation of the law," she said. "And that the disregard for truth for which I was made to suffer be dealt with accordingly at the soonest possible time."
Arroyo was detained under former President Benigno Aquino III, who accused her of corruption and misrule. Aquino's successor, Duterte, however, has said the plunder case against her was weak. She rejected his offer of a pardon because it would require that she be first convicted, preferring to fight the allegation.
Aquino has not commented on the court decision. But his former justice secretary and now Senator Leila de Lima said the Supreme Court seems to have assumed a role as a "trier of facts" in the case, supplanting the anti-graft court's assessment when it declared there was insufficient evidence of guilt. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
