 |
|

Legal news from Monday, June 27, 2005 |
 |
|


States brief ~ Colorado Supreme Court upholds juror questioning of witnesses
Rachel Felton on June 27, 2005 5:38 PM ET

[JURIST] Leading Monday's states brief, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled [PDF text] today that allowing jurors to submit questions to witnesses is not a per se violation of a defendant's right to a fair trial in criminal cases. One defendant's attorney argued that the threat of unfair questions from the jurors should be reason to bar the practice of juror questioning, while the state's Assistant Attorney General argued in support of juror questioning as the questions are filtered through the judge, and the prosecuting and defense attorneys before being asked to the witness. Rule 24(g) of Colorado's Rules of Criminal Procedure [text] allows jurors to ask witnesses questions and became effective in July 2004. AP has more.
In other state legal news ... - In Colorado again, the state supreme court Monday threw out the conviction of a Republican campaign aid who was convicted in 2003 of disrupting a lawful assembly in a case that demonstrated tensions between the right to free expression and the right to lawfully assemble. The opinion [PDF text] upheld state laws which limit political dissension, but found there was insufficient evidence to determine that the campaign aid had significantly disrupted the democratic candidate's rally. A spokesman for the state's Democratic party [official website] said the ruling gives activist a clear idea of the legal limits of political dissension, and a spokesman for the state's Republican Party [official website] said that the ruling enshrined the right to free speech. AP has more.
- The Sierra Club [press release] and state and federal highway officials settled a lawsuit Monday that was holding up the widening of a freeway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Sierra Club agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for the federal government's agreement to install air filtration systems at schools along the highway segment and to also pay for the relocation of portable classrooms and a playground at one of the campuses. The lawsuit was heard in January by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a decision had yet to be issued. The settlement needs the approval of the appeals court and of a Las Vegas federal judge who placed the project on hold last year. AP has more.
- Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevick has signed [press release] two hate crime laws that create civil penalties for housing discrimination and extend protection from hate crimes. The first bill [text] makes it a civil rights violation to coerce, intimidate, threaten or interfere with an individual's right to fair housing. The second bill [text] makes it a hate crime to use electronic communication to harass or threaten someone because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability. The Chicago Tribune has more.


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

|

High court declines to take reporters' appeal on confidentiality of sources
Tom Henry on June 27, 2005 1:38 PM ET

[JURIST] In a significant denial of certiorari Monday, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from two reporters asking the Court to allow them to refuse to identify their sources and not risk facing fines or jail time. Matthew Cooper of TIME [JURIST report] and Judith Miller of the New York Times [JURIST report] face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal their sources as part of an investigation into who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame [Wikipedia profile], whose husband, US Ambassador Joseph Wilson [Wikipedia profile], had been critical of US policy on Iraq. After the DC Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear the case [JURIST report] in April, intervention by the Supreme Court was sought by news groups arguing for the need to protect confidentiality. AFP has more. In a statement Monday, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press [advocacy website] said it was "disappointed" and "troubled" by the ruling: "Because of the split in the federal and state courts, the decision not to hear the case leaves reporters with little guidance on whether or not they can assure sources that promises of confidentiality will be upheld in court. It also provides no guidance to the federal courts reviewing the reporter's privilege in at least four other pending cases.." Read the full text of the RCFP statement. The RCFP offers more on reporters and federal subpoenas.
The Supreme Court Monday did granted certiorari in five other cases, including Bank of China v. NBM, regarding whether plaintiffs in civil RICO cases alleging mail and wire fraud as the acts on which they base their litigation need to establish reasonable reliance and Whitman v. DOT, regarding whether the Civil Service Reform Act [text] prevents suits by federal employees in federal court asserting statutory or constitutional violations relating to their employment. Other cases are Hudson v. Michigan, Hartman v. Moore, and Texaco v. Dagher, consolidated with Shell Oil Co. v. Dagher. Read the court's full Order List.


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

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