 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, October 13, 2004 |
 |
|


Appeals court upholds denial of special election for NJ governor
Chris Buell on October 13, 2004 8:25 PM ET

The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday upheld a lower court ruling that a special election was not needed to replace New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey, who announced his resignation in August and will step down Nov. 15. The court held that the office was not yet been officially vacated by McGreevey. Under state law, if McGreevey left office before Sept. 3, a special interim election would be held Nov. 2 to elect his replacement. However, following the appeals court's ruling, NJ Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat like McGreevey, will replace him for the duration of the term. In a per curiam opinion, the 3rd Circuit wrote: Under New Jersey law, a resignation is not valid unless it is in writing and filed in the office of the Secretary of State. "No resignation made in any other way or pretended to be made, shall be valid." N.J. Stat. Ann. 52:14-10. Plaintiffs have cited no statutory provision to the contrary, relying instead on the argument that McGreeveys public announcement is "functionally far more definitive and final than would be a letter of resignation quietly and privately delivered to a government official." But the New Jersey legislature has set forth what constitutes a "definitive and final" resignation. McGreeveys announcement has not satisfied these statutory requirements. By requiring a written filing with the Secretary of State a clear and concrete manifestation of resignation the legislature has assured clarity in the resignation process. Because Governor McGreevey has not yet officially resigned from the office of the Governor, there is no vacancy under the New Jersey Constitution. Read the full opinion [PDF]. The two Princeton attorneys who brought the case said they may appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Supreme Court hears arguments in juvenile capital punishment, deportation cases
Chris Buell on October 13, 2004 7:36 PM ET

As reported earlier on JURIST's Paper Chase, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases Wednesday, one raising the constitutionality of the death penalty for juveniles and the other dealing with the detention of illegal aliens by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The ABA has briefs filed in both cases. In Roper v. Simmons (case summary from Duke Law School), the Court confronted the juvenile capital punishment question, an issue upon which it has divided. The four most liberal members of the court, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens, have all voiced opposition to the practice of executing those convicted of killing under the age of 18, citing consensus among other countries that it is wrong. Justice Kennedy, who along with Justice O'Connor is expected to cast a key swing vote in the case, was one of the most active justices in arguments, questioning what impact the removal of a deterrent would have for future crimes. The death penalty is currently allowed for juvenile killers in 19 states. The ABA, which opposes the death penalty for minority killers, has more on the juvenile death penalty. AP has quotes from argument and more. In the consolidated case of Clark v. Martinez and Benitez v. Rozos (case summary from Duke Law School), the Court considered whether its previous case, Zadvyas v. Davis, requires the release of inadmissible aliens by the INS (now US Citizenship and Immigration Services).


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

China to revise death penalty law
Brandon Smith on October 13, 2004 2:57 PM ET

The Chinese government announced Wednesday that it will soon amend its Criminal Procedure Law, including its laws on the death penalty. Huang Songyou, Vice President of China's Supreme People's Court, says that changes are required in light of the fact that China has signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights and has enshrined a human rights clause into its constitution. Traditionally, death sentence cases were submitted to the Supreme People's Court for review and approval, but the review was on the basis of written reports only. In the future, the Supreme People's Court will review death penalty cases by trying the accused. China's Criminal Procedure Law was last examined in 1996. Read the Chinese government press release here. Chinese academics have estimated that China executes 10,000 convicted criminals annually, five times more than the rest of the world combined. Earlier this year Amnesty International called for a moratorium on China's death penalty under what the group calls a "dysfunctional" criminal justice system. Vice President Songyou admits that, despite the current laws' requirement that all death penalty cases be submitted to China's high court for review and approval, the court makes its decisions based on written reports without hearing the cases. IOL has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

FL Supreme Court hears arguments in provisional ballot dispute
Brandon Smith on October 13, 2004 2:06 PM ET

Florida's Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the validity of the state's provisional ballot law, Section 101.048 of the Florida Statutes, which reads in its material parts: 101.048 Provisional ballots.--
(1) At all elections, a voter claiming to be properly registered in the county and eligible to vote at the precinct in the election, but whose eligibility cannot be determined, and other persons specified in the code shall be entitled to vote a provisional ballot. Once voted, the provisional ballot shall be placed in a secrecy envelope and thereafter sealed in a provisional ballot envelope. The provisional ballot shall be deposited in a ballot box. All provisional ballots shall remain sealed in their envelopes for return to the supervisor of elections. The department shall prescribe the form of the provisional ballot envelope.
(2)(a) The county canvassing board shall examine each provisional ballot envelope to determine if the person voting that ballot was entitled to vote at the precinct where the person cast a vote in the election and that the person had not already cast a ballot in the election.
(b)1. If it is determined that the person was registered and entitled to vote at the precinct where the person cast a vote in the election, the canvassing board shall compare the signature on the provisional ballot envelope with the signature on the voter's registration and, if it matches, shall count the ballot.
2. If it is determined that the person voting the provisional ballot was not registered or entitled to vote at the precinct where the person cast a vote in the election, the provisional ballot shall not be counted and the ballot shall remain in the envelope containing the Provisional Ballot Voter's Certificate and Affirmation and the envelope shall be marked "Rejected as Illegal." Attorneys representing the AFL-CIO, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and Service Employees International Union argued that current limitations on the ballots, which mandate the exclusion of provisional ballots cast by people in the wrong precincts, violate the state constitution and disenfranchise voters who should be classified under the constitution as residents of counties and not particular precincts. Attorneys for Secretary of State Glenda Hood and elections officials responded by saying that Florida's provisional ballot law is a reasonable regulation akin to closing the polls at 7 PM. Questions raised by the justices ranged from Justice Anstead's fear that a burdensome number of provisional ballots would necessarily have to be sorted through to Chief Justice Pariente's concern that the High Court might not be able to do anything short of throwing out the law altogether. AP has more. Watch this morning's arguments online here. The ACLU has released a report indicating that since the provisional ballot law was passed up to 20% of some counties' provisional ballots have been rejected. Read the ACLU press release here, and their report here [PDF]. For coverage on JURIST's Paper Chase of the provisional ballot issue, including background of the case, click here.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

International brief ~ ICTY indictment against Bralo released
D. Wes Rist on October 13, 2004 1:13 PM ET

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has vacated the non-disclosure order on the 1995 indictment of Miroslav Bralo, a member of a special forces group of the Croatian Defense Council (HVO). Bralo is accused of numerous counts of using rape as a weapon against civilians (violations of the customs and laws of war) and multiple counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians. Read the official ICTY press release here. Read the offical indictment (text in French) here.... A French appeals court issued a ruling Wednesday confirming the order of extradition issued for Cesare Battisti, a former member of the Armed Proletariat for Communism, a terrorist group active in the 1970s and 80s. Battisti has been living openly in France after a sanctuary deal from former president Mitterand. Italy has issued charges against Battisti on four counts of murder and requested extradition, which was granted by the lower court. With the appellate court ruling, Battisti is subject to immediate extradition, although he can appeal to the Council of State (official site in French), France's highest court. On the official website for his crime novels, Battisti protests his innocence of any killings. Battisti has been missing since Saturday, when he failed to check in as required by the terms of his parole. Read an online petition against his extradition here. Reuters has more. Liberation provides local coverage from Paris.... The International Criminal Court has received a provisional agreement from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the standard Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court (text here [PDF]). The Memorandum of Understanding from the Congolese government ensures that ICC investigators will be able to operate freely and safely in the field while investigating the current case of war crimes before the ICC Office of the Prosecutor. The Memorandum serves in place of an official ratification of the APIC while that ratification is being processed by the DRC government. Read the offical ICC press notification here.... Russian and Kyrgyzstan Foreign Ministers Sergei Lavrov (Russian site here) and Askar Aitmatov (Kyrgyzstan government site (in Kyrgyz) here) exchanged documents Tuesday that will eventually lead to Kyrgyzstan signing the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (text here). The Kyrgyzstan Foreign Ministry says that the document will be signed and ratified as soon as possible, making it easier for that country to work together with other nations on the development and use of micro-organisms for such things as medicine, food treatment, and business spheres. Itar-Tass has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Financial disclosure records of Bush judicial nominees reflect ties to energy industry
Chris Buell on October 13, 2004 11:46 AM ET

Financial disclosure statements and Senate confirmation questionnaires from federal judicial nominees put forward by President Bush reveal strong ties to the energy industry, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization that has posted the material online, marking the first time that it has been made readily accessible to the public. CIR concluded from the data that: more than a third of President Bushs nominees to the federal district courts 21 of 59 nominations since 2001 have a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries. Twenty of the 21 have been nominated to the Appellate Courts in the 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and District of Columbia circuits where those same industries frequently battle over cases with huge financial interests at stake. These five circuit courts are at the forefront of establishing judicial precedent on matters involving conflicts over natural resources. The placement of the nominees suggests an administration strategy of nominating corporate friendly judges in circuits where they will make the greatest impact. In many cases, these same corporations and industries are also major campaign contributors to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party. The results of CIR's investigation, including nominees' disclosure statements, are available at the website Courting Influence. Judicial nominations have become a center of controversy after many of President Bush's nominations have been filibustered by the Senate. JURIST's Paper Chase has ongoing coverage of federal judicial nominations.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Legal agenda and live webcasts ~ Wednesday, October 13
Jeannie Shawl on October 13, 2004 8:04 AM ET

Here's a run-down of law-related events, expected developments and live webcasts on JURIST's docket for Wednesday, October 13.
The US Supreme Court will hear 10 AM ET oral arguments in Roper v. Simmons (case summary from Duke Law School), where the Court will consider whether the death penalty for someone who commits murder as a juvenile at age seventeen is "cruel and unusual" and thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and whether, after the Supreme Court has held that a punishment is "cruel and unusual," a lower court can reach a contrary decision based on an analysis of evolving standards. The ABA provides merit briefs filed in the case. Cornell's Legal Information Institute has additional background and the Washington Post has more.... The Court will also hear arguments today in the consolidated cases of Clark v. Martinez and Benitez v. Rozos (case summary from Duke Law School), where it will decide whether its 2001 decision in Zadvyas v. Davis compels the release of an arriving alien who was apprehended at the border of the US, denied admission and ordered removed from the US. The ABA provides merit briefs filed in the case. Cornell's Legal Information Institute has additional background.
Florida's Supreme Court will hear 9 AM ET oral arguments in a case challenging limitations on the use of provisional ballots. Watch a live webcast of the arguments. The court has case briefs and JURIST's Paper Chase has background.... Louisiana's 1st Circuit Court of Appeal will hear 10 AM ET oral arguments on the state's constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman and banning same-sex marriage and other civil unions. Paper Chase has background and the New Orleans Times-Picayune has more.
The Securities and Exchange Commission will meet at 10 AM ET to discuss amendments to Regulation M (the anti-manipulation rule concerning securities offerings). The proposed amendments would prohibit the acceptance of additional consideration beyond what is stated in the offering document in connection with a securities offering, extend the restricted period for IPOs, enhance the transparency of syndicate covering activity, adjust certain dollar value thresholds for inflation, and institute a recordkeeping requirement with respect to the de minimis exception. Read the meeting agenda and listen to a live webcast.
At the United Nations, the General Assembly will meet at 11 AM ET to resume discussion on the Security Council's report on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. The discussion will continue into the General Assembly's 3 PM ET session. Watch a live webcast of both sessions.
At the Hague, the Asser Institute will hold a colloquium entitled The EU Constitution: The Best Way Forward? Read the colloquium's agenda [PDF].


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|