|
|
|
Court: Silence can be used against suspects
Recent Law Insight |
2014/08/19 15:11
|
The California Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of suspects can be used against them.
Wading into a legally tangled vehicular manslaughter case, a sharply divided high court on Thursday effectively reinstated the felony conviction of a man accused in a 2007 San Francisco Bay Area crash that left an 8-year-old girl dead and her sister and mother injured.
Richard Tom was sentenced to seven years in prison for manslaughter after authorities said he was speeding and slammed into another vehicle at a Redwood City intersection.
Prosecutors repeatedly told jurors during the trial that Tom's failure to ask about the victims immediately after the crash but before police read him his so-called Miranda rights showed his guilt.
Legal analysts said the ruling could affect future cases, allowing prosecutors to exploit a suspect's refusal to talk before invoking 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds Snowden email firm contempt
Recent Law Insight |
2014/04/21 15:10
|
A federal appeals court has upheld a contempt of court citation against an email service provider used by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled unanimously against Dallas-based Lavabit Inc. and its owner, Ladar Levinson.
Appeals court Judge Steve Agee wrote that Levinson was sanctioned for refusing to help federal authorities track the email of a target of a criminal investigation. The opinion did not name the target.
Levinson also did not mention Snowden or any particular investigation when he closed his company last August. He said he would rather go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Lawmakers must expedite education funding
Recent Law Insight |
2014/01/10 15:56
|
The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ordered lawmakers to submit a complete plan by the end of April to detail how the state will fully pay for basic education.
The 8-1 ruling said that while the state made progress in last year's budget to increase funding for K-12 education, it was "not on target" to hit the constitutionally required funding level by the 2017-18 school year.
"We have no wish to be forced into entering specific funding directives to the State, or, as some state high courts have done, holding the legislature in contempt of court," read the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. "But, it is incumbent upon the State to demonstrate, through immediate, concrete action, that it is making real and measureable progress, not simply promises."
Joining Madsen were Justices Charles Johnson, Debra Stephens, Susan Owens, Charles Wiggins, Mary Fairhurst, Steven Gonzalez and Sheryl Gordon McCloud. Justice Jim Johnson wrote a separate dissent, which was to be released at a later date.
In 2012, the high court ruled that the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation concerning education funding. That ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents and education groups, known as the McCleary case for the family named in the suit. The court has required yearly progress reports from the Legislature on its efforts. Those reports are then critiqued by the group that brought the lawsuit, and by the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Declines To Take Liberty University's Obamacare Lawsuit
Recent Law Insight |
2013/12/05 14:47
|
The Supreme Court has turned away a Christian university's attempt to overturn a key part of the Obama administration's health care law.
The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling dismissing Liberty University's lawsuit.
Liberty made several arguments in challenging the portion of the health care law that requires most employers to provide health insurance to their workers or pay a fine. The 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Richmond, Va., rejected those claims.
The Supreme Court separately is considering whether for-profit corporations can mount religious objections to the law's requirement to include birth control among preventive health benefits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada Supreme Court upholds ethics laws
Recent Law Insight |
2013/12/02 13:44
|
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the state's ethics laws on Wednesday while backing the censure of a Sparks councilman for his 2005 vote on a casino project involving his former campaign manager.
In a 5-2 opinion, justices rejected arguments from Sparks Councilman Michael Carrigan that the conflict of interest laws are overly vague and violate constitutional protections of right of association.
Chief Justice Kris Pickering, writing for the majority, said the law serves to ensure that public officers "avoid conflicts between (their) private interests and those of the general public whom (they) serve."
At issue was whether a catch-all phrase in Nevada law extending defined voting prohibitions — such as in matter involving family members, business partners or employers — to any other substantially similar relationship is vague and unconstitutional.
Carrigan was censured by the state Ethics Commission for voting on the Lazy 8 hotel-casino project. Carlos Vasquez, a lobbyist for the project, had served as Carrigan's campaign manager free of charge and placed media ads for the campaign at cost, according to court documents. He also lobbied for the project before the Sparks City Council.
The Lazy 8 was backed by one-time developer and Nevada political powerhouse Harvey Whittemore, who was convicted this year in federal court on felony charges related to illegal campaign contributions made to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm SEO RSS Feed
