[JURIST] A US military judge Friday denied a motion to dismiss charges against US Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich [advocacy website; JURIST news archive], the leader of the squad implicated in the killing of 24 Iraqis [BBC backgrounder] in Haditha [USMC case materials; JURIST news archive] in November 2005. Lt. Col. David Jones ruled [AP report] that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that officers handling the case were improperly influenced by receiving information from an aide that had previously investigated the incident. Per military policy, the aide's prior involvement barred him from participating in the decisions to file charges or initiate court-martial [JURIST news archive] proceedings. Jones found, however, that the officers overseeing both decisions conducted ample independent research before reaching their conclusions. Wuterich's trial is now scheduled to begin September 13.

Wuterich's court-martial was postponed [JURIST report] in March 2008 to allow prosecutors time to appeal a judge's decision to throw out a subpoena for unaired footage from a CBS interview with the Marine. Wuterich was initially charged with unpremeditated murder, but the investigating officer recommended [JURIST report] in 2007 that the more serious charge be dropped. Of the eight Marines initially charged in connection to the Haditha incident, all but Wuterich have either had their charges dismissed or been found not guilty. Charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani [JURIST news archive] were dropped in June 2008, a decision that was upheld the following March [JURIST reports]. Also in June 2008, 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson [JURIST news archive] was cleared on all counts, including charges that he ordered a subordinate officer to delete photographic evidence [JURIST reports] of the killings. In August 2007, all charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt and Capt. Randy W. Stone were dismissed [JURIST report]. An official report on the Haditha incident by US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell found "serious misconduct" [JURIST report] at all levels of the US Marine Corps chain of command.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] unanimously ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that limiting contributions from individuals to independent political advocacy organizations is unconstitutional. The court relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [opinion, PDF], which eased restrictions [JURIST report] on political and campaign spending by corporations on First Amendment grounds. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) [official website] contended that the Citizens United ruling was not applicable because it involved expenditure limits as opposed to contribution limits. The court rejected this argument and found the latter to be in violation of the First Amendment, saying:

Because Citizens United holds that independent expenditures do not corrupt or give the appearance of corruption as a matter of law, then the government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations. No matter which standard of review governs contribution limits, the limits on contributions to [political advocacy groups] cannot stand.

[JURIST] A federal judge ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that firearms regulations [text] in Washington DC, including a ban on assault weapons and a prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices [ATF backgrounder], do not violate the US Second Amendment [text]. The ruling by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina [official profile] of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] also upholds new registration rules that require a gun owner to submit fingerprints, photographs, and pay for a ballistics test. In upholding the regulations, Urbina cited the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller [JURIST report] which struck down an outright ban on handgun ownership in Washington DC nonetheless permitted the regulation of firearms. Urbina wrote:

Because the [City] Council provided ample evidence of the ways in which the registration requirements will effectuate the goal of promoting public safety, and because public safety is a quintessential matter of public regulation, the court concludes that there is at least a substantial nexus between the registration requirements and the important governmental interest underlying those requirements. As a result, the court denies the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment on Count One of the second amended complaint.

[JURIST] Lawyers for former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] claimed Friday that the Constitutional Court of Thailand [official website, in Thai] had wrongfully [Bangkok Post report] ordered the seizure of assets belonging to Thaksin and asked for a reconsideration of his case. Noppadon Pattama, Thaksin's legal advisor, said that new evidence had come to light [AFP report] showing that Thaksin did not abuse his power while in office to benefit himself. Lawyers for Thaksin's children are expected to file separate appeals against the ruling. A five-judge Supreme Court panel will decide [The Nation report] whether to accept the appeal.

The Thai Constitutional Court ruled [JURIST report] last month that Thaksin was guilty of using his power in office to personally benefit himself and other family members. The Court ordered that $1.4 billion of his estimated $2.2 billion fortune be seized. The court found [Bangkok Post report] that Thaksin crafted government telecommunications policy to benefit his family by providing them with shares in Shin Corporation [corporate website]. The shares were then sold just three days after the the government raised the maximum foreign ownership of telecommunication companies from 20 percent to 49 percent. Thaksin has claimed [statement] that all of his wealth was obtained legitimately. Thaksin was also convicted in absentia on corruption charges related to a land purchase and sentenced [JURIST report] to two years in prison. Thai officials have denied [JURIST report] claims that the country's judiciary is biased against the former prime minister.