A federal court has reversed a Southern California man's conviction in the bludgeoning death of his wife.

The Orange County Register reports that a three-judge panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that 75-year-old Marvin Vernis Smith didn't receive a fair trial.

A jury found Smith guilty of murdering his wife 66-year-old Minnie Smith in 2007. She was found dead in their Cypress home, bludgeoned to death in the head and face with a metal fireplace log roller on Dec. 15, 2005.

The court ruled that a jury instruction violated Smith's right to receive proper notice of charges against him and prepare a defense.

The district attorney's office will request that the state attorney general ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

Carson Employment litigation attorney can assist you in determining the best solution in order for clients to seek recovery in the most efficient and effective manner.

Employment litigation can come in various forms, including claims for wrongful termination, retaliation, harassment, discrimination, wage and hour violations, late payment of wages, misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime pay or as independent contractors, and failure to make reasonable accommodations.

If you are located in the Los Angeles area, we work all throughout Southern California and can help if you or a loved one has been terminated wrongfully, then we can help you handle these matters to determine your rights and to get the necessary remedies as a solution.

The Law Offices of Craig Hubble can guide you, depending upon your situation.  If you or a loved one feel that you may have an employment-related claim, contact us today for a free consultation as to your rights and potential remedies.  Because these matters are handled on a contingency basis, there is no fee unless and until you are compensated.

Colorado is asking the federal courts to stay out of a dispute about whether its strict tax and spending limits has robbed the state of a republican form of government.

In arguments Monday, state Solicitor General Daniel Domenico told a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that lawmakers still have the ability to ask voters to approve a tax increase if they think one is needed under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

"Just because it's a little bit harder doesn't make it unrepublican," he said of the referendum needed to raise taxes under TABOR.

Domenico said that if lawmakers tried and failed to win a tax increase, they might have a case. But he also argued that courts haven't gotten involved in enforcing the provision in the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a republic — or representative democracy — to the states, leaving that to Congress instead.

Law Offices of Craig Hubble, based in Hermosa Beach, is a wrongful termination attorney. Although most California employees can be fired at the discretion of their employer, any termination that may have been done based on discrimination, retaliation, fraud or violation of a signed or implied contract is illegal.  When an employee is fired on the basis of his/her age, gender, race, religion or disability, for refusing to submit to sexual advances, or in retaliation for reporting misconduct or refusing to commit an illegal act, he/she may pursue legal action against their employer for wrongful termination.

However, wrongful termination lawyer Craig Hubble can assist you in getting the results you need and want. With extensive years of experience in the field and depending on your situation, you may be able to pursue a lawsuit and seek damages for lost wages, benefits, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, punitive damages and more so that you have a peace of mind,.

We are here to help. If you or a loved one feel that your employment has been wrongfully terminated, don't hesitate to contact us today for a free consultation as to your rights and potential remedies. These matters are handled on a contingency basis, so there is no fee unless and until you are compensated.

Veteran entertainer Rolf Harris intends to plead not guilty to indecent assault and child pornography charges, his lawyer told a London court hearing Monday.

The 83-year-old performer faces nine counts of indecent assault on victims aged 14 and 15 and four counts of making indecent images of children. The alleged incidents stretch back to the 1980s.

Harris, who was accompanied by his wife Alwen, spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth during the brief pre-trial hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Defense lawyer Sonia Woodley said Harris would deny the charges when asked to enter a formal plea at a later hearing.

Australia-born Harris has been a British broadcasting stalwart for decades. He has had musical hits with "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" - which he once performed with The Beatles - and "Two Little Boys."

He also has hosted television shows and painted an official portrait of Queen Elizabeth II.

A multibillion dollar case between two giant pharmaceutical companies grappling over arcane antitrust issues has unexpectedly turned into a gay rights legal imbroglio that raises questions over whether lawyers can bounce potential jurors solely based on their sexual orientation.

The case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Wednesday centers on whether Abbott Laboratories broke antitrust laws when it increased the price of its popular and vital AIDS drug Norvir by 400 percent in 2007. But broader public attention likely will be given to the three-judge panel's look at whether Abbott wrongfully removed a juror in the case brought by competitor SmithKlineBeecham. The court is expected to take up the issue sometime after 10 a.m. local time Wednesday.

The cost increase angered many in the gay community. SmithKlineBeecham, meanwhile, claims it was meant to harm the launch of its new AIDS treatment, which requires the use of Norvir. And the company contends "Juror B" was removed simply because he was gay.

"It's a big deal," said Vik Amar, University of California, Davis professor. "The headlines from this case are not

Before trials, lawyers for both sides are allowed to use several "preemptory challenges" each to remove someone from the jury pool without legal justification.

For its part, Abbott argued, it bounced "Juror B" for three reasons, none having anything to do with his sexual orientation. Lawyers said they felt the juror's impartiality was compromised because he was the only potential juror who had heard of the SmithKline treatment in question, that he was also the only prospective juror who had lost a friend to AIDS and that he worked for courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 prohibited lawyers from using their challenges to bounce a potential juror from a case because of race.