|
|
|
Court justice suspended over role in porn scandal
Legal News |
2014/10/22 13:41
|
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Monday suspended one of its members over his participation in a state government pornographic email scandal that involved employees of the attorney general's office.
The court justices issued an order saying Justice Seamus McCaffery may not perform any judicial or administrative duties while the matter is reviewed by the Judicial Conduct Board, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.
The main order also noted allegations about McCaffery's actions related to a traffic citation received by his wife, who is a lawyer, and referral fees she obtained while working for him as an administrative assistant. It also noted he "may have attempted to exert influence over a judicial assignment" in Philadelphia.
The Judicial Conduct Board was given a month to determine whether there is probable cause to file a misconduct charge against McCaffery, a Philadelphia Democrat elected to the seven-member bench in 2007.
McCaffery's lawyer, Dion Rassias, said they were confident he will be cleared and will soon return to the bench.
The court's action followed disclosures last week by Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a Republican, that McCaffery had sent or received 234 emails with sexually explicit content or pornography from late 2008 to May 2012. McCaffery apologized, calling it a lapse in judgment, but blasted Castille for "a vindictive pattern of attacks" against him.
A third justice, Michael Eakin, also a Republican, on Friday went public with a claim McCaffery had threatened to leak "inappropriate" emails Eakin had received if he didn't side with McCaffery against Castille.
McCaffery denied threatening Eakin, who reported the matter to the Judicial Conduct Board. Neither Eakin nor McCaffery participated in the court's decision.
Castille was among the four justices voting to suspend McCaffery with pay, along with Max Baer, Corry Stevens and Thomas Saylor. Justice Debra Todd dissented, saying she would have referred the matter, including the question of suspension, to the Judicial Conduct Board. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Egypt court sentences 3 Islamists to 15 years each
Legal News |
2014/10/13 16:52
|
A Cairo court has convicted a leading Muslim Brotherhood figure and two other Islamists and sentenced them to 15 years in prison each on charges of torturing a man during the 2011 protests against then-President Hosni Mubarak.
State MENA news agency says the court on Saturday found Mohammed el-Beltagy along with a preacher and a junior member of the group guilty of holding and beating a man in an office overlooking Tahrir square they suspected was an undercover policeman spying on the 18-day sit-in against Mubarak.
El-Beltagy was a regular speaker at the sit-in, which eventually led to the ouster of the longtime autocrat.
El-Beltagy has already been sentenced to 20 years for allegedly torturing two police officers during last summer's protest against the ouster of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court to take up Missouri execution case
Legal News |
2014/07/17 12:15
|
A last-minute stay from a federal judge has put a Missouri inmate's execution temporarily on hold.
John Middleton was scheduled to die one minute after midnight Wednesday for killing three people in rural northern Missouri in 1995. With less than two hours to go before the execution, U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry granted a stay, ruling there was enough evidence of mental illness that a new hearing should be held.
Courts have established that executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court adjourned for the night without a ruling.
It was a confusing end to a day that saw a flurry of court actions. Perry first granted a stay early Tuesday, but that was overturned by the appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn the appeals court ruling and declined to halt the execution on several other grounds, including the contention by Middleton's attorneys that he was innocent of the crimes.
Middleton's attorneys then went back to Perry, who once again granted a stay.
However the appeals court eventually rules, the case is likely to end up again in the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the stay is lifted, the state could execute Middleton at any time Wednesday. The death warrant expires at midnight Thursday and if Middleton is not executed by then, the Missouri Supreme Court would have to set a new date. State witnesses and media were told to report back to the prison by 10:30 a.m.
Middleton, 54, would be the sixth man put to death in Missouri this year — only Florida and Texas have performed more executions in 2014 with seven each.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media lawyer: Court's secrecy note not a surprise
Legal News |
2014/07/11 10:23
|
Critics of House Speaker Bobby Harrell said Thursday they're concerned by the state Supreme Court's call for secrecy in future court arguments in his case.
But media attorney Jay Bender said he thinks the justices only recognized the secrecy of grand juries.
On Wednesday, the state's high court unanimously overturned a lower court's decision and said Attorney General Alan Wilson has the authority to investigate Harrell and empanel a state grand jury to consider allegations the powerful Charleston Republican abused his power for personal benefit.
That lower court must now decide whether Wilson should be removed from the case, as Harrell initially sought in his February motion. The justices noted Judge Casey Manning had raised questions about Wilson's jurisdiction on his own.
Harrell, speaker since 2005, maintains he's done nothing wrong. He's called the allegations and investigation politically motivated.
Bender, a freedom of information expert, does not represent any parties in the case but does represent the news media, including The Associated Press.
He said he's not disturbed by a footnote in the ruling, which orders future arguments on jurisdiction and related issues to be held in private. Such hearings will likely involve what the grand jury is hearing, he said.
Bender noted that Wilson wanted to present sealed grand jury evidence to the Supreme Court as part of his appeal. The justices did not allow it, saying he can't use documents on appeal that were never presented to Manning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Dept. to Reveal Drone Memo
Legal News |
2014/05/23 13:24
|
On the eve of a critical Senate vote and under court order, the Obama administration signaled it will publicly reveal a secret memo describing its legal justification for using drones to kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism overseas.
Two administration officials told The Associated Press that the Justice Department has decided not to appeal a Court of Appeals ruling requiring disclosure of a redacted version of the memo under the Freedom of Information Act. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
The decision to release the documents comes as the Senate is to vote Wednesday on advancing President Barack Obama's nomination of the memo's author, Harvard professor and former Justice Department official David Barron, to sit on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., had vowed to fight Barron's confirmation, and some Democratic senators were calling for the memo's public release before a final vote.
Wednesday's expected procedural vote would allow the Senate to move ahead with a final vote on Barron on Thursday. "I think we'll be OK," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said earlier Tuesday.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader born in the United States, was killed after being targeted by a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011. Some legal scholars and human rights activists complained that it was illegal for the U.S. to kill American citizens away from the battlefield without a trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuit says California mortgage money mishandled
Legal News |
2014/03/17 14:12
|
Three community assistance organizations sued Gov. Jerry Brown and other state officials on Friday, alleging the state improperly diverted nearly $370 million that was intended to help homeowners struggling with foreclosures.
The lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court says the money was siphoned off to the state's general fund as California wrestled with a massive budget deficit and has never been repaid. The money was part of the $25 billion settlement between major banks and nearly every state in 2012, with California receiving the largest share.
H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance, said in a statement that the administration is confident that its budget actions are legally sound.
The suit was filed by attorney Neil Barofsky, who previously was inspector general for the federal bank bailout. The suit alleges the money is needed to help affected homeowners "weather the economic storm that continues to sweep so many families out of their homes."
"As a result of these diversions, large numbers of homeowners who are eligible for loan modifications or other relief have been left stranded, and countless fiscally imperiled California homeowners remain unaware of the full scope of their rights," the lawsuit states.
Barofsky filed the suit on behalf of three California-based community organizations that the suit says have helped thousands of homeowners: National Asian American Coalition, COR Community Development Corporation and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
