JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Monday, March 29, 2010

Supreme Court hears double jeopardy, transnational securities fraud cases
Jaclyn Belczyk at 3:10 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF; merit briefs] Monday in two cases. In Renico v. Lett [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether double jeopardy is violated by a new trial after a state trial court declared a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a verdict. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the decision of the district court that the second trial violated the rights of the defendant, Reginald Lett. The decision overturned a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, which found that the second trial did not violate the double jeopardy bar. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Sixth Circuit failed to properly defer to the Michigan court under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) [text, PDF]. Counsel for the respondent, Lett, argued that, "habeas relief was properly granted."

In Morrison v. National Australia Bank [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the court heard arguments on whether foreign investors are entitled to bring fraud-on-the-market claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 [text, PDF] when the stock purchased was that of a foreign company on a foreign securities exchange. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] the decision of the district court to dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It found that actions outside of the US were more responsible for the fraud than anything that occurred within the US. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the federal court had jurisdiction over the claim. Counsel for the respondents argued, "unlike the rights of action that this Court has addressed in other extraterritoriality cases, the section 10(b) right is purely implied. Congress didn't intend for this right of action to exist even domestically, let alone extraterritorially." Counsel for the US government argued as amicus curiae on behalf of respondents.






Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

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


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Malaysia authorities seize newspapers, detain opposition activists
12:34 PM ET, May 23

 Member of feminist rock group Pussy Riot denied parole
11:56 AM ET, May 23

 Egypt court acquits police officers accused of killing protester
11:39 AM ET, May 23

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org