|
|
|
Chile court: US had role in 'Missing' killings
Legal News Digest |
2014/07/01 11:30
|
A Chilean court said U.S. military intelligence services played a key role that led to the 1973 killings of two Americans in Chile in a case that inspired the Oscar-winning film "Missing."
A court ruling released late Monday said former U.S. Navy Capt. Ray E. Davis gave information to Chilean officials about journalist Charles Horman and student Frank Teruggi that led to their arrest and execution just days after the 1973 coup that brought Gen. Augusto Pinochet to power.
"The military intelligence services of the United States had a fundamental role in the creation of the murders of the two American citizens in 1973, providing Chilean military officers with the information that led to their deaths," the ruling by Judge Jorge Zepeda said.
Zepeda also upheld the decision to charge retired Chilean army Col. Pedro Espinoza with the murders, and Rafael Gonzalez, a former civilian counterintelligence agent, as an accomplice in Horman's murder. The two Chileans and Davis had been indicted in 2011.
Davis commanded the U.S. Military Mission in Chile at the time of the Sept. 11, 1973, American-backed coup that ousted the democratically elected government of leftist President Salvador Allende. Davis was investigating Americans in Chile as part of a series of covert intelligence operations run out of the U.S. Embassy targeting those considered to be subversives or radicals, according to the judge's investigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects appeal of gay jury selection case
Legal News Digest |
2014/06/25 09:02
|
A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider its ruling granting heightened legal protections to gays and lesbians, prompting three dissenting judges to warn of far-reaching implications in same-sex marriage cases in the Western United States.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January banned the exclusion of potential jurors because of their sexual orientation, saying such action was akin to striking someone from the jury pool because of their race or gender.
An undisclosed majority of the full 29-judge court voted against rehearing the case over the objections of three judges.
The dissenters, led by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain argued that the ruling "bears significant implications for the same-sex marriage debate and for other laws that may give rise to distinctions based on sexual orientation."
O'Scannlain argues giving gays and lesbians the same protections as minorities and women prematurely decides the same-sex marriage issue without the U.S. Supreme Court's input. O'Scannlain pointed out that officials in Nevada and Oregon have cited the 9th Circuit opinion to drop official opposition to same-sex marriage.
A week after the Jan. 21 ruling, for instance, Carson City District Attorney Neil Rombardo withdrew opposition to a lawsuit challenging Nevada's gay marriage ban, citing the 9th Circuit juror ruling that he called a "game changer."
O'Scannlain was joined by Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.
The ruling is binding in the nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit, including the four states with pending same-sex marriage cases: Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon and Nevada. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court won't hear California's prison appeal
Legal News Digest |
2014/06/10 12:39
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that California bears responsibility for nearly 2,000 disabled parolees housed in county jails.
The decision could leave state taxpayers liable for problems at some of the jails, said Jeffrey Callison, a spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The high court did not comment as it declined to consider Gov. Jerry Brown's appeal of a January 2012 decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland.
She ruled that state prison officials failed to monitor and protect former inmates who were returned to county jails instead of state prisons for parole violations under a now 3-year-old state law.
That law keeps most parole violators and lower-level offenders in county jails instead of state prisons in response to federal court orders requiring the state to reduce the prison population.
The ruling in the parolee case was upheld last year by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, despite objections by the state.
"We believe that the lower court impinged upon a state's right to delegate responsibilities to local governments," Callison said.
The state penal code says parole violators in county jails are under counties' jurisdiction, he said, but "the federal court decided that didn't matter, that they were still ultimately state parolees."
That could make the state financially responsible for providing jailed parolees with the accommodations to which they are entitled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington wants pot tax trial in state court
Legal News Digest |
2014/06/03 13:13
|
The state attorney general's office has asked a federal judge in Seattle to dismiss a lawsuit challenging Washington's authority to tax marijuana sales.
In the motion Friday to U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman, the state says Martin Nickerson failed to appeal the tax assessments in a timely manner and that the issue should be resolved in state court.
The case arises from the state's attempt to collect sales taxes from a medical marijuana dispensary in Bellingham. Attorney Douglas Hiatt, who represents Nickerson, said it could throw a wrench in Washington's plans for collecting taxes on recreational marijuana, too.
The lawsuit challenges Washington state's authority to tax marijuana as long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Says Mich. Can't Block Indian Casino
Legal News Digest |
2014/05/30 15:30
|
A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Michigan can't block the opening of an off-reservation American Indian casino because the state's legal challenge is barred by tribal sovereign immunity.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court said the state could not shutter the Bay Mills Indian Community's casino about 90 miles south of its Upper Peninsula reservation.
The ruling was a win for Indian tribes, which have increasingly looked to casinos as a source of revenue and have relied on immunity to shield them from government interference. But it's a disappointment for Michigan and more than a dozen others states that say the decision will interfere with their ability to crack down on unauthorized tribal casinos.
Michigan argued that the Bay Mills tribe opened the casino in 2010 without permission from the U.S. government and in violation of a state compact. The tribe had purchased land for the casino with earnings from a settlement with the federal government over allegations that it had not been adequately compensated for land ceded in 1800s treaties.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only allows a state to bring lawsuits challenging casinos operating on Indian lands. But the Bay Mills casino was opened outside the tribe's reservation, Kagan said, placing it outside the law's coverage.
Since the casino does not fall under federal gaming laws, Kagan said it is subject to the ordinary tribal immunity that extends to off-reservation commercial activities. Kagan said it doesn't matter that the casino was authorized, licensed and operated from the tribe's reservation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
