|
|
|
Connecticut court stands by decision eliminating execution
Lawyer Interview |
2015/10/10 14:15
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday stood by its decision to eliminate the state's death penalty, but the fate of capital punishment in the Constitution State technically remains unsettled.
The state's highest court rejected a request by prosecutors to reconsider its landmark August ruling, but prosecutors have filed a motion in another case to make the arguments they would have made if the court had granted the reconsideration motion.
Lawyers who have argued before the court say it would be highly unusual and surprising for the court to reverse itself on such an important issue in a short period of time, but they say it is possible because the makeup of the court is different. Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., who was in the 4-3 majority to abolish the death penalty, reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 and was succeeded by Justice Richard Robinson.
In the August decision, the court ruled that a 2012 state law abolishing capital punishment for future crimes must be applied to the 11 men who still faced execution for killings committed before the law took effect. The decision came in the case of Eduardo Santiago, who was facing the possibility of lethal injection for a 2000 murder-for-hire killing in West Hartford.
The 2012 ban had been passed prospectively because many lawmakers refused to vote for a bill that would spare the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, who were convicted of killing a mother and her two daughters in a highly publicized 2007 home invasion in Cheshire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connecticut court stands by decision eliminating execution
Lawyer Interview |
2015/10/01 14:17
|
The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday stood by its decision to eliminate the state's death penalty, but the fate of capital punishment in the Constitution State technically remains unsettled.
The state's highest court rejected a request by prosecutors to reconsider its landmark August ruling, but prosecutors have filed a motion in another case to make the arguments they would have made if the court had granted the reconsideration motion.
Lawyers who have argued before the court say it would be highly unusual and surprising for the court to reverse itself on such an important issue in a short period of time, but they say it is possible because the makeup of the court is different. Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., who was in the 4-3 majority to abolish the death penalty, reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 and was succeeded by Justice Richard Robinson.
In the August decision, the court ruled that a 2012 state law abolishing capital punishment for future crimes must be applied to the 11 men who still faced execution for killings committed before the law took effect. The decision came in the case of Eduardo Santiago, who was facing the possibility of lethal injection for a 2000 murder-for-hire killing in West Hartford.
The 2012 ban had been passed prospectively because many lawmakers refused to vote for a bill that would spare the death penalty for Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, who were convicted of killing a mother and her two daughters in a highly publicized 2007 home invasion in Cheshire.
The state's high court said the death penalty violated the state constitution, "no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency," and didn't serve any "legitimate penological purpose." The majority included Norcott and Justices Richard Palmer, Dennis Eveleigh and Andrew McDonald, the same four justices that rejected the prosecution's reconsideration request Thursday.
Chief Justice Chase Rogers and Justices Peter Zarella and Carmen Espinosa bashed the majority in the Santiago case, accusing the other four justices of tailoring their ruling based on personal beliefs. The three dissenting justices also were in favor of the prosecution's motion to reconsider.
Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane had said the majority justices unfairly considered concerns that had not been raised during Santiago's appeal and denied prosecutors the chance to address those concerns. He said prosecutors have filed briefs in the still-pending death penalty appeal of Russell Peeler Jr., raising the same issues they did in the motion for reconsideration in the Santiago case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burkina Faso court rejects candidate of former ruling party
Lawyer Interview |
2015/09/02 13:58
|
A court in Burkina Faso on Saturday rejected the chosen presidential candidate of the former ruling party, prompting threats of a boycott of the vote in October.
The presidential and legislative elections scheduled for Oct. 11 are intended to end one year of transitional rule imposed after longtime President Blaise Compaore was ousted in a popular uprising triggered by his attempt to alter rules that would have prevented him from seeking a third term.
The candidate list published Saturday included 16 of the 22 proposed candidates. The list is still provisional and appeals can be filed until Sept. 6. Most of the rejected candidates were disqualified for failing to pay the necessary fees.
But Eddie Comboigo, the chosen candidate of Compaore's Congress for Democracy and Progress, was barred under a new electoral code passed earlier this year that disqualifies candidates who supported Compaore's bid to stay in office. Earlier this week, the court rejected more than 40 candidates for the legislative vote including former ministers and lawmakers close to Compaore.
The United States has expressed concern about the code, which was denounced by a regional court. The country's interim leader, Michel Kafando, initially said the country would abide by the regional court's ruling, but transitional authorities have more recently called for the High Court's decisions to be respected.
Compaore's party will boycott the elections "and resort to civil disobedience" if its candidates are blocked from running, said Jonathan Yameogo, a communications official with the party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel to open dialogue with International Criminal Court
Lawyer Interview |
2015/07/09 15:34
|
An Israeli newspaper says Israel has decided to open talks with the International Criminal Court over its preliminary investigation into Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip last year.
The Haaretz daily reported the decision Thursday — a reversal for Israel, which has refused to cooperate with the ICC.
The court is conducting a preliminary investigation to determine whether to open a full-fledged war crimes probe. More than 2,200 Palestinians, including over 1,400 civilians, were killed last year, according to U.N. figures. On the Israel side, 73 died.
Haaretz also quoted an anonymous official as saying Israel will not cooperate with the court. Instead, it will relay its position that the court has no authority over the matter.
Israel's Foreign Ministry says Haaretz's report is true but declined to elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peterson returns to court in murder-for-hire trial
Lawyer Interview |
2015/07/08 15:33
|
Former suburban Chicago police sergeant Drew Peterson is due back in court as his trial on charges of plotting to kill a prosecutor approaches.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Tuesday in the southern Illinois county where Peterson is imprisoned.
He's pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting an unidentified prison inmate to kill Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow.
Glasgow prosecuted the 2012 case in which Peterson was sentenced to 38 years in prison for the bathtub drowning death of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio eight years earlier. Her death was initially ruled an accident, but the case was re-opened after the 2007 disappearance of Peterson's fourth wife.
The Randolph County trial was scheduled to begin Monday, but has been rescheduled to start on August 28.Peterson returns to court in murder-for-hire trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma court to look at blocking Tulsa grand jury probe
Lawyer Interview |
2015/07/03 14:20
|
The Oklahoma Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to stop a grand jury investigation into an embattled sheriff whose longtime friend and volunteer deputy fatally shot an unarmed man.
Attorneys for Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz want justices to toss out a lower court's decision to empanel a grand jury on July 20. The state Supreme Court late Thursday appointed a referee to hear evidence and arguments in the case on July 14.
More than 6,600 Tulsa residents petitioned for the investigation into whether Glanz neglected his duties and whether reservists who gave gifts to the sheriff were shown special treatment. Glanz's lawyers say some signatures were gathered improperly and the petition should be tossed.
District Judge Rebecca Nightingale on Tuesday rejected Glanz's claims. Terry Simonson, a spokesman for the sheriff, said Glanz is appealing to the high court because the law has been applied incorrectly.
"He has the same rights as every citizen in Oklahoma to defend the position he believes in and the right to appeal based upon that conviction," Simonson said. "That's what he did today."
The petition drive began after reserve deputy Robert Bates, 73, shot and killed Eric Harris on April 2. Harris ran from authorities during a gun-sales sting operation and Bates maintains he confused his stun gun and handgun. Bates has pleaded not guilty to second-degree manslaughter in the slaying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
