 |
|

Legal news from Monday, August 27, 2012 |
 |
|


Romania parliament accepts court decision returning suspended president to office
Brandon Gatto on August 27, 2012 4:14 PM ET

[JURIST] The Parliament of Romania on Monday recognized the return to office of suspended President Traian Basescu after accepting a recent Constitutional Court [official websites, in Romanian] decision [text, PDF] that invalidated [JURIST report] a national referendum to remove the leader. Parliament's acceptance of the ruling [Reuters report] comes only after the Social Liberal Union, the country's leftist party that commands the government's lower house and is led by Prime Minister Victor Ponta [BBC profile], worked to suspend Basescu in July and garner votes for his impeachment in a national referendum. After Ponta's party gained control of the parliamentary majority in May, Basescu was quickly impeached in July [JURIST report] by a vote of 256-114. Thereafter, Parliament also voted to eliminate the national referendum law mandating a minimum 50 percent voter turnout. Although 80 percent of voters were in favor of ousting Basescu, the Constitutional Court reinstated the referendum rule [JURIST report] and relied on a finding by Romania's national electoral bureau that only 46 percent of the country voted [JURIST], thus invalidating the referendum.
Basescu has faced several similar political challenges throughout the course of his eight-year presidency. In 2009 the Constitutional Court declared then-incumbent Basescu the winner of a disputed presidential election [JURIST report], returning him to office after unanimously rejecting a complaint by Mircea Geoana, Basescu's opponent, alleging voter fraud and bribery. In 2007, he survived a similar referendum [JURIST report] with 74 percent of the vote and only 44 percent turnout. Babescu was first elected President of Romania in December 2004.


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

|

Russia feminist activists appeal 2-year prison sentence
Brandon Gatto on August 27, 2012 3:17 PM ET

[JURIST] The lawyer for three members of the Russian feminist activist group Pussy Riot on Monday appealed the two-year sentences imposed on the women last week. Defense lawyer Nikolai Polozov conceded that the decision of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow has little chance of being reversed [Reuters report] due to the Russian government's interest in the case, but he expressed hope that the sentences would be shortened or made conditional. Polozov has not limited the range of the appeal to Russian courts, as he has consistently expressed an intent to appeal [RAPSI report] both the verdict and the alleged rights violations that occurred during trial to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website].
Pussy Riot's controversial trial ended [JURIST report] on August 17 with a guilty verdict and two-year prison sentences for each of the three women. Specifically, band members Natalia Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina, and Yekaterina Samutsevich were found guilty of "hooliganism" in the form of religious hatred, a charge based on the group's "guerrilla performance" of a protest song in February at the altar of Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. Though the charge carries a maximum sentence of seven years, prosecutors originally requested sentences of three years [JURIST report]. The prosecution of Pussy Riot has been criticized as a politically motivated move by Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website; JURIST news archive] to discredit his opposition. Although defense lawyers for the band requested that the judge recuse herself [JURIST report] from the case due to politically motivated decisions, Judge Marina Syrova declined even hearing the motion for her recusal. The women were arrested in March, and their trial began [JURIST report] at the end of July.


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

|

Supreme Court urged to deny review of California Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban
Dan Taglioli on August 27, 2012 1:27 PM ET

[JURIST] Opponents of
Proposition 8 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], California's statewide ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST backgrounder] urged the US Supreme Court [official website] on Friday not to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari submitted [JURIST report] by Proposition 8 supporters. The petition was filed last month after a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] in February voted 2-1 to overturn the ban and subsequently denied the supporters' petition for an en banc rehearing [JURIST reports]. The Proposition 8 challengers urged the court to deny certiorari [SCOTUSblog report], arguing [brief, PDF] that the court should wait to address state marriage rights for same-sex couples and instead focus on the six pending same-sex marriage cases that challenge the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text; JURIST news archive]. The argument is that the court will be better able to evaluate the case after the constitutionality of DOMA has been decided. Furthermore, while the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] struck down Proposition 8 [JURIST report] in a sweeping ruling that declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the case now before the court concerns the much narrower ruling by the Ninth Circuit, which declined to rule on the right-to-marry issue, holding only that Proposition 8 is invalid because California had for a brief period allowed same-sex marriages, and then took away that right. The challengers argue that because the Ninth Circuit simply applied existing Supreme Court precedent in Romer v. Evans [Lambda Legal backgrounder], no new legal ground was explored and therefore the case does not meet the Supreme Court's traditional standards for review. The challengers further stated that there is no conflict among the federal courts on the issue, because the Proposition 8 cases dealt strictly with legal happenings in the state of California and nowhere else. Additionally they argue that the supporters of Proposition 8 lack standing [Cornell LII backgrounder] to request the review because they would not be personally injured if same-sex couples were allowed to marry.
Proposition 8 was struck down as a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses [Cornell LII backgrounders] of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit initially heard arguments on Proposition 8's constitutionality in December 2010, but then asked the California Supreme Court [JURIST reports] to rule on whether defendants had standing to appeal. The state high court ruled in November that they did have standing [JURIST report]. Several jurisdictions in the US have legalized same-sex marriage, including the District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York [JURIST reports] and the Suquamish [NYT report] and Coquille Indian Tribes [OregonLive report].


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

|

Federal judge approves DOJ settlement over Seattle police department
Dan Taglioli on August 27, 2012 12:15 PM ET

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Western District of Washington [official website] on Friday tentatively approved a settlement agreement between the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the City of Seattle relating to a DOJ investigation of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) [official websites]. Judge James Robart gave provisional approval for the agreement [joint motion, PDF], which will implement a package of reforms that overhauls police rules, especially on the use of force, and installs an independent monitor to oversee the department and make regular reports to the court and public. The agreement will also create a Community Police Commission that will suggest many of the reforms and a Crisis Intervention Committee for training and best practices research. Robart stated that the qualifications, staffing, funding and appointment of the monitor [Seattle Times report] are the court's top priority and suggested that the monitor's semiannual reporting schedule stipulated in the agreement should be amended to provide for quarterly or even monthly reports. The city agreed to the reform package to avoid a prolonged lawsuit to compel such changes:SPD and City officials have expressed their desire to continue the ongoing efforts to improve the Seattle Police Department through the Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that the measures agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement will enhance SPD officers' ability to provide effective and constitutional policing, will promote transparency and accountability between SPD and the community, and will increase public confidence in SPD. ... Settling this dispute without protracted litigation thus allows the City, the United States, and SPD officers to achieve one of their shared primary goals: ensuring effective and constitutional policing for the City of Seattle. The DOJ investigation into the SPD and the subsequent settlement agreement stem from a series of high-profile incidents around 2009 in which police allegedly engaged in excessive force [Reuters report], particularly against minorities. Among the incidents was the widely-reported killing of American Indian woodcarver John Williams, who was shot to death by police in downtown Seattle in 2010 even though he appeared not to pose a threat to the officers.
Police practices are often controversial. Last week the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] heard arguments on whether to enjoin a controversial provision of Arizona's immigration law [SB 1070, PDF] that requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons they stop or arrest [JURIST report] if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally. The two legal questions addressed were whether extending the detention of suspects to determine immigration status violates suspects' constitutional rights, and whether SB 1070 unconstitutionally discriminates against Latinos. Also last week the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] ruled that police did not violate Fourth Amendment [text] protection against illegal searches when they tracked a suspect's cell phone [JURIST report] using the phone's global positioning system (GPS) [JURIST news archive] signal.


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

|

Myanmar court imprisons 2 UN staff members over sectarian violence
Sarah Paulsworth on August 27, 2012 9:00 AM ET

[JURIST] A court in Myanmar on Friday sentenced two local UN staff members to imprisonment for their alleged involvement in sectarian violence that gripped the western Rakhine state this past spring. One of the staff members worked for [DVM report] the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the other worked for the World Food Program. An employee working for an aid agency partnered with the UN was also imprisoned. The three aid workers, who are reportedly from Myanmar's Muslim minority, received prison terms of between two and six years [AP report]. According to Aye Win, the National Information Officer for the UN Information Center in Yangoon, the UN did not receive official information about the convictions, and the aid workers were not represented by lawyers [Myanmar Times report] during their trial.
Earlier this month Myanmar President Thein Sein [BBC profile] announced the creation of a 27-member commission [JURIST report] tasked with investigating the cause of the sectarian violence between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists. The clashes, which began in May and carried on into June in the western Rakhine state, were responsible for at least 83 deaths and the displacement of thousands of nearby civilians. In July 10 UN staff and aid workers were arrested [JURIST report] in Rakhine. At that time, it was reported that three of those arrested [Reuters report] were Myanmar nationals working for the UNHCR while four of the 10 arrested were working for Doctors Without Borders. Earlier this month several other UN staff members and representatives from international NGOs were released after spending over two months in prison.


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

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