|
|
|
Pound: Sharapova guilty of 'willful negligence' in drug test
Legal Career News |
2016/03/06 16:24
|
Maria Sharapova was guilty of "willful negligence" for using meldonium, and international tennis officials were aware that many players were taking the drug before it was banned this year, former World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound said Wednesday.
Pound told The Associated Press that Sharapova could face a ban of up to four years unless she can prove mitigating circumstances to explain her positive test for meldonium at the Australian Open in January.
Meldonium, a Latvian-manufactured drug designed to treat heart conditions, was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list on Jan. 1 after authorities noticed widespread use of the substance among athletes.
In announcing her positive test at a news conference in Los Angeles on Monday, Sharapova said she had been using the drug for 10 years for various medical issues. The five-time Grand Slam champion and world's highest-earning female athlete said she hadn't realized meldonium had been prohibited this year, taking full responsibility for her mistake.
"An athlete at that level has to know that there will be tests, has to know that whatever she or he is taking is not on the list, and it was willful negligence to miss that," Pound said. "She was warned in advance I gather. The WADA publication is out there. She didn't pay any attention to it. The tennis association issued several warnings, none of which she apparently read."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reid pounds GOP united against Obama Supreme Court choice
Legal Career News |
2016/02/21 16:23
|
Conservative and liberal groups are only beginning their battle over the Supreme Court vacancy, with a smattering of television ads and behind-the-scenes research serving as warning shots in what's sure to be an expensive fight that will color November's elections.
Activity will only ramp up once President Barack Obama names someone to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia ? a nomination Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other Republicans promise the chamber will never consider. Many expect Obama to announce his pick next week.
With the court's 4-4 balance between liberal and conservative justices in play, both parties and their allies are reaching out to rally their memberships, solicit contributions and savage the opposition.
The conservative Judicial Crisis Network has run TV spots backing GOP senators in seven states and digital ads targeting Democrats in four others, while its leader wrote an article criticizing one potential nominee for a case she handled as a public defender a decade ago. On its website, the legislative arm of the National Rifle Association links readers to an article titled "Justice Barack Obama?" suggesting that scenario should Democrat Hillary Clinton become president.
The Senate Majority PAC, backing Democrats, has launched a New Hampshire TV ad accusing GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte, in a competitive re-election race, of "ignoring the Constitution, not doing her job." And Citizens United, dedicated to overturning the Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, has aired commercials pressing Ayotte and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., to consider a nominee. A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general penned a letter warning Senate leaders not to "undermine the rule of law." MoveOn.org and other progressive groups plan rallies outside senators' home-state offices on a March 21 "National Day of Action."
"A Supreme Court nomination is the No. 1 top priority for almost any conservative group," said Carrie Severino, the Crisis Network's policy director, a sentiment shared by liberals, too. "Almost every issue ultimately finds its way to the Supreme Court."
Democrats and liberals have focused on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and other Republican senators seeking re-election this fall in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Backed by nearly all GOP senators, Grassley has said his panel won't hold a hearing on Obama's choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ex-Illinois guardsman pleads guilty in Islamic State plot
Legal Career News |
2016/02/06 14:52
|
A former Illinois National Guard soldier pleaded guilty Monday to charges alleging he conspired to provide material support to the Islamic State group.
Hasan Edmonds, 23, of Aurora, Illinois, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and one count of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
The pleas in Chicago federal court came one week after his cousin, Jonas Edmonds, 30, of Aurora, pleaded guilty to similar charges.
"Hasan and Jonas Edmonds conspired to provide material support to ISIL," John P. Carlin, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a news release, using one of the alternative names for the Islamic State group. "They admitted planning to wage violence on behalf of ISIL in the Middle East and to conduct an attack on our soil."
Prosecutors say Hasan Edmonds devised a plan for Hasan Edmonds to travel to the Middle East and join Islamic State fighters overseas. After dropping his cousin off at Midway International Airport last March, Jonas Edmonds went to Hasan Edmonds' home and collected several National Guard uniforms that he planned to wear as a disguise during a planned attack at the Joliet armory, the plea agreement said.
Agents with the Chicago FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Hasan Edmonds before he could board his flight and arrested Jonas Edmonds at his home a short time later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court takes up challenges to drunken-driving test
Legal Career News |
2016/02/05 14:52
|
The Supreme Court will decide whether states can criminalize a driver's refusal to take an alcohol test even if police have not obtained a search warrant.
The justices on Friday agreed to hear three cases challenging laws in Minnesota and North Dakota that make it a crime for people arrested for drunken driving to refuse to take a test that can detect alcohol in blood, breath or urine.
At least a dozen states make it a crime to refuse to consent to warrantless alcohol testing. State supreme courts in Minnesota and North Dakota have ruled the laws don't violate constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that police usually must try to obtain a search warrant before ordering blood tests for drunken-driving suspects. The high court said circumstances justifying an exception to the warrant requirement should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In the case from Minnesota, police arrested William Bernard after his truck got stuck while trying to pull a boat out of a river in South Saint Paul. Police officers smelled alcohol on his breath and said his eyes were bloodshot. After Bernard refused to take a breath test, police took him into custody.
Bernard was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and a first-degree count of refusal to take a breath test, which carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison.
He argued that the refusal law violated his Fourth Amendment rights by criminalizing his refusal to submit to a search. A divided Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that officers could have ordered a breath test without a warrant as a search incident to a valid arrest.
The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld similar challenges to its test refusal law, ruling that motorists are deemed to consent to alcohol testing. The court called the law a reasonable tool in discouraging drunk driving.
One of the two North Dakota cases the high court will hear involves Danny Birchfield, who was arrested after he drove his car into a ditch and failed a field sobriety test and a breath test. He declined to take to additional tests and was convicted under the state's refusal law, which counts as a misdemeanor for a first offense.
A second appeal from North Dakota comes from Steve Beylund, a driver who was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving and consented to a chemical alcohol test. Beylund later tried to suppress the evidence from that test, but lower courts declined.
In all three cases, the challengers argue that warrantless searches are justified only in "extraordinary circumstances." They say routine drunk driving investigations are among the most ordinary of law enforcement functions in which traditional privacy rights apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
Florida asks court to deny inmate's execution-delay request
Legal Career News |
2016/01/20 14:51
|
Florida has asked the state's high court to reject a condemned inmate's request to delay his execution based on the U.S. Supreme Court's finding that Florida's procedure for imposing the death penalty is illegal.
In a brief filed Thursday, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office said the U.S. Supreme Court's finding should not be applied retroactively to already-settled death penalty cases.
Ruling on the Hurst v. Florida case Tuesday, the nation's highest court ruled 8-1 that Florida's procedure is flawed because it allows judges, not juries, to decide death sentences.
Attorneys for convicted killer Michael Lambrix cited the ruling in their request for a new sentencing hearing for him.
Lambrix is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Feb. 11.
It wasn't clear when the court would rule.
|
|
|
|
|