 |
|

Legal news from Friday, September 10, 2010 |
 |
|


Guinea officials convicted of election fraud
Zach Zagger on September 10, 2010 3:12 PM ET

[JURIST] Two Guinea election officials were convicted Friday of election fraud and sentenced to a year in jail for irregularities with June's presidential primary election. The convictions of Ben Sekou Sylla, president of the election commission, and his top aide, El Hadj Boubacar Diallo, have raised further tensions [AfricaNews report] before the presidential run-off election scheduled for September 19. The verdict was handed down without the presence [AP report] of either official, and Diallo said he did not find out until being contacted by a radio journalist for a comment. In the June presidential election [JURIST report], no candidate received a majority of votes, forcing a run-off election. The fraud complaint was lodged by the opposition leader Alpha Conde who came in second in the primary election with 18 percent of the vote. Former prime minister Cellou Diallo received 44 percent of the vote and is seen as the favorite [BBC report] in the upcoming run-off.
The runoff election has already been postponed after first being scheduled for July 18 [Reuters report] due to allegations of misconduct during balloting. The votes have divided primarily along ethnic lines, with all candidates running on a similar platform of economic expansion and the rule of law. The presidential election is seen as the first free election in Guinea since attaining independence in 1958. In May, the International Criminal Court (ICC) sent a delegation from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) [official websites] to Guinea to further investigate the killing [JURIST report] of more than 150 pro-democracy protesters in Conakry [BBC backgrounder] in September 2009. The protesters had rallied against Guinean military leader Moussa Dadis Camara [BBC profile], who announced in October that he intended to push elections forward three months and stand for election, breaking a promise not to run made shortly after he took power. An assassination attempt on Camara two months later eventually drove him into exile.


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

|

Ninth Circuit rules tattoo parlors protected by First Amendment
Brian Jackson on September 10, 2010 1:14 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Thursday invalidated [opinion, PDF] a municipal ban on tattoo parlors by Hermosa Beach, California, calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The controversy initially arose when Johnny Anderson was denied a permit to open a tattoo parlor by the city, located in southern California. The city does not list tattoo parlors in its zoning code [materials], and, as tattoo parlors must be registered under California law [California Health and Safety Code, text], the city's code in effect outlawed those establishments. The US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] granted summary judgment to the city when Anderson filed his original suit. In arriving at its decision, the Ninth Circuit first held that tattooing is an expressive activity, not merely conduct with an expressive component. Based on that holding, the court further held that tattooing was subject to only reasonable time, place or manner restrictions, and the city's ban was not narrowly tailored to the city's interest in protecting public health and did not leave open alternative channels of communication. The court concluded:[T]he City's total ban on tattoo parlors in Hermosa Beach is not a reasonable "time, place, or manner" restriction because it is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the City's significant health and safety interests and because it entirely forecloses a unique and important method of expression. Moreover, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the constitutionality of the regulation. Thus, we hold that Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.06.070 is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes tattoo parlors. The city is currently deliberating as to whether it will appeal the decision [LAT report] to an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, or perhaps even to the Supreme Court.
First Amendment rights have been the focus of numerous court challenges in recent history, often by unpopular groups seeking to have their rights enforced. Also Thursday, the US District Court for the Central District of California, which granted summary judgment against Anderson, ruled that the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy violates the First Amendment [JURIST report]. In August, the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri found that Missouri laws banning protests at funerals [JURIST report] are unconstitutional. That case involved the controversial Westboro Baptist Church, and another case involving the same organization will be heard by the Supreme Court [JURIST report] this term.


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

|

France prosecutors seek to drop police charges over 2005 riot deaths
Matt Glenn on September 10, 2010 1:02 PM ET

[JURIST] French judges may drop charges against two police officers who chased three teen boys into a power substation where two of the teens died after being electrocuted, according to Friday reports [AP report]. The two officers were charged in 2007 [JURIST report] with "non-assistance to a person in danger" under Article 223-6 of the French penal code [text] for failing to alert anyone that the teens had entered the substation. If convicted, the officers could face up to five years in prison and fines close to $100,000. The teens' deaths set off riots in France [JURIST news archive] that lasted three weeks. According to reports, French prosecutors have submitted a request to drop the case due to lack of evidence. Lawyers for the teens' families, Jean-Pierre Mignard and Emmanuel Tordjman [Lysias Partners profiles, in French], said dropping the case would send a message to police that they will not be held accountable for their actions. Investigating judges will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the case.
In 2006, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin [JURIST news archive] promised to strengthen anti-vandalism laws [JURIST report] in France after a man was injured in violence marking the one-year anniversary of the 2005 riots. In 2006, France began to deport [JURIST report] some of the foreign rioters. In early 2006, France lifted its state of emergency [JURIST report] implemented during the riots. The riots began in late October 2005 and continued into November [JURIST report] of that year.


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

|

Federal judge strikes down 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'
Megan McKee on September 10, 2010 9:39 AM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Central District of California [official website] on Thursday struck down [opinion, PDF] the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) [10 USC § 654; JURIST news archive] policy, which bans openly gay individuals from the armed services. The suit [case materials; LCR backgrounder] was initiated in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans [advocacy website], who argued that the policy violates individuals' First Amendment and Due Process rights. Judge Virginia Phillips agreed, holding that the less deferential standard identified by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Witt v. Department of the Air Force [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] applied to the instant case, rather than the more permissive rational basis standard. Effectively, the government faced the burden of demonstrating that DADT is necessary to further the government's important interests of military readiness and unit cohesion, a burden Phillips held it failed to meet. Phillips is set to draft an injunction against the policy within a week, giving the government a chance to respond. This case presented the biggest legal test for DADT in recent years, and was unique in that it attacked the policy in general rather than on the basis of individual complaints.
Phillips began the trial [JURIST report] in July. Last month, a US military officer filed a lawsuit [complaint, PDF; JURIST report] seeking to enjoin the military from discharging him under DADT. In May, the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee [official websites] voted to repeal the policy after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed to a compromise [JURIST reports] that would prevent the repeal from taking effect until the completion of a review to determine what effects the repeal would have on military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Also in May, A CNN poll [results, PDF] released found that 78 percent of American adults believe that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. In March, Gates announced changes to the enforcement [JURIST report] of the policy to make it more difficult to expel openly gay service members from the military.


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

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