|
|
|
Oregon court upholds governor's execution delay
Headline News |
2013/06/20 22:18
|
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber can delay the lethal injection of a death-row inmate who wants to waive his appeals and speed his execution, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.
The Oregon Supreme Court said Kitzhaber did not overstep his power when he granted a reprieve delaying the death sentence of Gary Haugen, who was convicted of two murders.
Kitzhaber opposes the death penalty and intervened weeks before Haugen was scheduled to be executed in 2011. The governor said he refused to allow an execution under a state death-penalty system he views as broken, vowing to block any execution during his term in office.
Haugen challenged Kitzhaber's clemency, saying the reprieve was invalid because Haugen refused to accept it. He also argued that it wasn't actually a reprieve but rather an illegal attempt by the governor to nullify a law he didn't like.
The governor argued that his clemency power is absolute, and nobody - certainly not an inmate on death row - can prevent him from doing what he believes to be in the state's best interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NJ court: Special US Senate election in Oct. OK
Court Center |
2013/06/19 18:07
|
A special U.S. Senate election to replace the late Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg can be held in October, as it was scheduled by Republican Gov. Chris Christie, a state court ruled Thursday.
The ruling could be appealed. And while it keeps an election on course it does not seem likely to chill criticism of the popular governor for how he chose to replace Lautenberg, the Senate's oldest member, who died last week at age 89.
Four Democrats and two Republicans have filed petitions to run in the Senate race to complete Lautenberg's term, with three early polls showing Democratic Newark Mayor Cory Booker as the front-runner.
Christie scheduled the election for Oct. 16. A group of Democrats sued, saying it should be held Nov. 5, the day voters are going to the polls in the general elections anyway.
Christie's critics have complained that holding the election in October will cost taxpayers unnecessarily. Officials say each election costs the state about $12 million to run.
Judge Jane Grall wrote Thursday that objections to the costs of the election are policy matters that aren't questions for the court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court says human genes cannot be patented
Headline News |
2013/06/13 16:24
|
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that companies cannot patent parts of naturally-occurring human genes, a decision with the potential to profoundly affect the emerging and lucrative medical and biotechnology industries.
The high court's unanimous judgment reverses three decades of patent awards by government officials. It throws out patents held by Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics Inc. on an increasingly popular breast cancer test brought into the public eye recently by actress Angelina Jolie's revelation that she had a double mastectomy because of one of the genes involved in this case.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the court's decision, said that Myriad's assertion — that the DNA it isolated from the body for its proprietary breast and ovarian cancer tests were patentable — had to be dismissed because it violates patent rules. The court has said that laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable.
"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," Thomas said.
Patents are the legal protection that gives inventors the right to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years, but opponents of Myriad Genetics Inc.'s patents on the two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer say such protection should not be given to something that can be found inside the human body. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Battle between SC Episcopalians back state court
Legal Watch |
2013/06/11 16:05
|
The legal fight between two factions of South Carolina Episcopalians will be decided in state court.
U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck has issued an order saying the federal court has no jurisdiction and hearing the case would disrupt the balance between state and federal courts. Houck heard arguments in the dispute last week.
The conservative Diocese of South Carolina last year separated from the more liberal national Episcopal Church. The break-away churches then sued in state court to protect the use of the name and a half billion dollars' worth of property.
Parishes remaining with the national church then sued in federal court saying the case raised First Amendment and other federal issues.
But Houck disagreed and late Monday sent the case back to state court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: $1M coverage for Conn. fire victim families
Legal News |
2013/06/11 16:04
|
Families suing the operator of a Hartford nursing home where 16 patients died in a 2003 fire suffered a setback Monday, when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the home's insurance coverage was $1 million instead of the $10 million claimed by the victims' relatives.
The justices' 3-2 decision reversed a lower court judge's interpretation of Greenwood Health Center's insurance policy in favor of the families. The high court instead found in favor of Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.
"It just seems completely inadequate," Van Starkweather, an attorney for one victim's family, said about the lower coverage figure. "I'm disappointed. It was a close decision. Three justices went with AIG. Two justices went with the victims."
A lawyer for Lexington Insurance declined to comment Monday.
The fire at Greenwood Health Center on Feb. 26, 2003, broke out after psychiatric patient Leslie Andino set her bed on fire while flicking a cigarette lighter. Officials at the time said it was the 10th deadliest nursing home fire in U.S. history. Andino was charged with 16 counts of arson murder, but was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a psychiatric hospital.
Relatives of 13 of the 16 victims sued the nursing home's operator for cash damages, saying it failed to adequately supervise Andino. Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. ruled in 2009 that Greenwood's insurance policy with Lexington provided $250,000 in coverage for each plaintiff and the policy's maximum coverage was $10 million.
But Lexington Insurance appealed Berger's decision, saying that the $10 million was the total coverage for all seven nursing homes run by Greenwood's operator and that each home was insured up to $1 million.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, the Supreme Court's majority found that each plaintiff actually was eligible for up to $500,000 from the insurance policy if they won their lawsuit, but that the policy's total coverage was limited to $1 million. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) as Maryland DUI
Headline News |
2013/06/10 17:23
|
Charges made against an individual for drinking and driving in Maryland have two common names: Maryland DUI and Maryland DWI. To be considered for a DUI charge, your blood alcohol level minimum is .08 or higher. All other alcohol levels, such as .07, could get you arrested for a DWI. These arrests are made depending on how impaired your driving abilities are due to alcohol consumption.
There are many consequences in getting charged with a DUI. These include but are not limited to 45 days of a suspended license, and a fine of up to $1,000.00 in addition to one year in jail for a first DUI conviction, and $2,000.00 and two years in jail for a second offense DUI. It is also extremely severe for your driving record because a DUI conviction will result in 12 points for the state of Maryland.
Maryland DWI (driving while impaired) is the lesser offense in comparison with a DUI; however, it still has very harsh punishments, including a driver's license suspension of up to 60 days, 8 points on the Maryland Driver's License record, up to $500 and two months in jail for a first offense, and up to $500.00 and one year in jail for a second offense.
It is crucial to act upon your DUI or DWI arrest in Maryland and to be sure a MVA administrative hearing is requested in writing within 10 days. The driving privileges are automatically suspended unless the hearing is requested. A refusal to take the breathalyzer test is admissible in court as evidence of guilt and also may result in 120 days of driving privileges being suspended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Police can take DNA swabs from arrestees
Legal Watch |
2013/06/03 21:09
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday said police can routinely take DNA from people they arrest, equating a DNA cheek swab to other common jailhouse procedures like fingerprinting.
"Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court's five-justice majority.
But the four dissenting justices said that the court was allowing a major change in police powers.
"Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said in a sharp dissent which he read aloud in the courtroom.
At least 28 states and the federal government now take DNA swabs after arrests. But a Maryland court was one of the first to say that it was illegal for that state to take Alonzo King's DNA without approval from a judge, saying King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches."
But the high court's decision reverses that ruling and reinstates King's rape conviction, which came after police took his DNA during an unrelated arrest. Kennedy wrote the decision, and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer. Scalia was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
