Arizona sheriff shifts blame over disobeying court order

Court News 2015/04/23 15:06   Bookmark and Share
The normally defiant sheriff for metro Phoenix responded meekly and shifted blame Wednesday as he was questioned in court about why he violated a judge's orders to stop carrying out his signature immigration patrols.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he accepts responsibility for disobeying the 2011 order, but he repeatedly added that he delegated the enforcement of the injunction to his lawyers and staff. He was asked whether he remember getting an attorney's opinion on carrying the order's key section.

"Not that I can recall," said Arpaio.

The sheriff could face fines if he's found in contempt of court for his acknowledged violations of the injunction and two other orders issued in a racial-profiling case that Arpaio eventually lost. Rank-and-file officers who were never told about the injunction violated the order for about 18 months.

The sheriff also has accepted responsibility for his agency's failure to turn over traffic-stop videos in the profiling case and bungling a plan to gather such recordings from officers once some videos were discovered.

Arpaio made the acknowledgments in an unsuccessful bid to get the hearing called off. The contempt hearing marks the boldest attempt to hold the sheriff personally responsible for his actions.

His voice wasn't booming in court as it often is before TV cameras. Instead, he was hoarse, looked tired and often answered questions by saying he didn't recall. Arpaio's attorney hasn't yet had a chance to question him in court.

The sheriff, whose testimony is scheduled to resume Thursday, was questioned about a former supervisor on his smuggling squad who said Arpaio ordered him to violate the 2010 order.

A day earlier, Sgt. Brett Palmer had described a tense encounter with Arpaio about a month after the 2011 order was issued in which federal immigration authorities refused to accept immigrants who hadn't committed a violation of state law. Palmer said he planned to bring the immigrants to another federal immigration agency, but he was ordered to first call Arpaio, who ordered him not to release them. Palmer said the sheriff eventually backed down.
top

Court debates law, grammar in ruling on weapons on campus

Legal Insight 2015/04/23 15:06   Bookmark and Share
It's a court decision that required knowledge of both law and grammar.

In a decision Tuesday, a divided state Appeals Court ordered a new trial for a former High Point University student who had a Ruger pistol and three knives in a car she parked on campus.

Judges said the trial court should have told the jury to consider whether prosecutors proved Anna Laura Huckelba was knowingly on educational property at the time.

The judges said they were ruling for the first time on whether the word "knowingly" in the law modifies both possessing weapons and being on educational property. In a 2-1 decision, the majority said it does.

Huckelba received suspended sentences when she was found guilty of three misdemeanors and one felony in October 2013.
top

Panama court lifts Martinelli's immunity from prosecution

Headline Legal News 2015/04/15 11:57   Bookmark and Share
Panama's Electoral Tribunal has lifted former President Ricardo Martinelli's immunity from prosecution, clearing the way for authorities to investigate him for alleged corruption.

The lifting of Martinelli's immunity as a member of the Central American parliament had been requested by Panama's Supreme Court and frees it to proceed with his prosecution. The decision was made Tuesday and announced the following day.

The billionaire supermarket magnate faces accusations that he inflated contracts worth $45 million to purchase dehydrated food for a government social program.

Martinelli has denied the charges and says he is the target of persecution by his successor, Juan Carlos Varela. He has left the country and his whereabouts are unknown.

Martinelli governed Panama from 2009-2014, a period of high economic growth but also of corruption, his critics say.
top

Man kills his lawyer, judge, co-defendant in Milan court

Legal Insight 2015/04/15 11:57   Bookmark and Share
A real estate developer on trial for fraudulent bankruptcy fired 13 shots inside the Milan Tribunal on Thursday, killing his lawyer, a co-defendant and a judge, eluding court security before being captured 25 kilometers away.

The shooting raised concerns about security at Italy's courthouses, where much of the surveillance has been outsourced to private contractors, and about Italy's ability to protect visitors during the Milan Expo 2015 world's fair, which opens May 1 and is expected to attract 20 million visitors over six months.

Premier Matteo Renzi pledged a robust investigation into how the gunman, identified as Claudio Giardiello, managed to bring a pistol into the monumental Fascist-era tribunal, where defendants and other visitors are required to pass through metal detectors, but accredited court officials, including lawyers, are not.

"Our commitment is that this never happens again, and that those responsible pay," Renzi said.

The chief federal prosecutor in Milan, Edmondo Bruti Liberati, told reporters it appeared Giardiello may have used a fake document to enter through the only pedestrian entrance not equipped with a metal detector and intended only for use by accredited court officials. He said the metal detectors at the other entrances were in good working order.

Bruti Liberati praised law enforcement, who apprehended Giardiello at a shopping center more than an hour after the shooting. They had identified the license plate on his motor bike with video surveillance cameras and tracked his arrival in Vimercate, some 25 kilometers (15 miles) from the scene in the heart of Milan.

Prosecutors said Giardiello, 57, was still armed with a loaded pistol and intended to kill another business partner whom he blamed for a failed real estate venture.
top

Ex-Premier Zia avoids arrest as Bangladesh court grants bail

Court News 2015/04/07 12:55   Bookmark and Share
Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia avoided arrest on corruption charges Sunday after a court granted her bail.

Judge Abu Ahmed Jamadder approved Zia's request for bail when she surrendered to court in the capital, Dhaka.

Zia left her office for the first since Jan. 5, when authorities had initially barred her from leaving to attend an anti-government rally calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, her archrival. Authorities later said she was free to move to her nearby residence, but Zia refused, vowing to continue with anti-government protests that have turned violent, leaving nearly 115 people dead since the beginning of the year.

Zia's lawyers have rejected allegations that she illegally collected more than $1 million in donations for a charity during her last premiership in 2001-2006, and say the charges are politically motivated, which authorities deny. The trial began early last year.

The court had issued an arrest warrant for Zia in February after she failed to appear to answer the charges against her. Prosecutors on Sunday did not oppose Zia's bail request.

Zia currently leads a 20-party opposition alliance that has been enforcing a nonstop transportation blockade across the South Asian country since early January to demand that Hasina resign and a new election be called.

The blockade began after a year of relative calm following a January 2014 election that was boycotted by Zia's party. The boycott allowed Hasina to come to power with an overwhelming majority, and she says there is no need for another election before 2019, when her five-year term ends.
top

Protesters inside Supreme Court face harsher charges

Headline Legal News 2015/04/07 12:55   Bookmark and Share
Protesters who demonstrated inside the U.S. Supreme Court are facing the threat of a year in jail and stiff fines, a sign that prosecutors and the justices themselves are losing patience over the courtroom interruptions after the third protest in just over a year.

Five people arrested last week after voicing displeasure with court decisions that removed limits on political campaign contributions now face charges including one that carries a maximum jail term of a year and up to a $100,000 fine — a sharp escalation from the possible penalties sought after two earlier protests.

A leader of the group behind the protests would not rule out future demonstrations, despite what he called an effort to crack down on the courtroom disturbances. "We are not going to be silenced," said Kai Newkirk, whose group 99Rise opposes the influence of big money in elections.

While protests on the sidewalk outside the U.S. Supreme Court are common, until last year demonstrators had rarely broken the decorum of oral arguments inside the courtroom. In February 2014, however, Newkirk was removed from the courtroom after he stood and called on the court to overturn its 2010 Citizens United decision, which freed corporations and labor unions from some limits on campaign spending. It was the first protest to disrupt an argument session in more than seven years.
top









Disclaimer: Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nothing submitted as a comment is confidential. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites.

Affordable Law Firm Website Design