|
|
|
CSI commander facing lawsuit in Neb. murder case
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/28 08:45
|
| Less than a week after being indicted for allegedly tampering with evidence in a homicide investigation, a crime scene investigator is being sued in federal court by one of the men who was wrongfully charged in the double-murder case.pOn Sunday, Nicholas Sampson filed paperwork to add David Kofoed, commander of the Douglas County CSI unit, and the Douglas County Sheriff's Office to a 2007 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court against the Nebraska State Patrol and the Cass County Sheriff's Office./ppThe amendment says Kofoed violated Sampson's constitutional rights by planting a speck of blood in a car Sampson had driven./ppSampson spent five months in jail after being wrongfully charged in the deaths of Wayne and Sharmon Stock. The couple were found slain in their Cass County farmhouse on April 17, 2006. Both had been shot in the head at close range with a shotgun./ppLaw enforcement involved with the Stock investigation insists that the case against Nick Sampson remains an open case, said Sampson's attorney, Maren Chaloupka. I find that ironic, given that the only person currently under indictment is one of their own./ppKofoed, 52, was charged Wednesday in Cass County Court with evidence tampering and was indicted a day later on four federal charges, including falsifying records./ppHis attorney, Steve Lefler, has said Kofoed may have made some mistakes in the case, but they did not rise to the level of criminal misconduct./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas case before high court to test voting rights
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/26 08:40
|
The community of Canyon Creek was ranchland rich with limestone and cedar trees when Jim Crow held sway in the South. The first house wasn't built until the late 1980s and not even a hint of discrimination attaches to this little slice in suburbia.
p
President Barack Obama won more than 48 percent of the vote in November in this overwhelmingly white community northwest of the state capital./ppYet Canyon Creek, the heart of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One, is the site of a major Supreme Court battle over the federal government's often used and most effective tool in preventing voting discrimination against minorities./ppThe utility district's elected five-person board manages a local park and pays down bond debt. Because it is in Texas, the board is covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval from the Justice Department before any changes can be made in how elections are conducted./ppThat requirement applies to all or parts of 16 states, mostly in the South, with a history of preventing blacks, Hispanics and other minorities from voting./ppThe utility district is challenging that section of the law, which Congress extended in 2006 for 25 years. The Obama administration is defending it./ppThe Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965, opened the polls to millions of black Americans. The law has been the most important and transformative civil rights act in our country's history, said John Payton, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund./ppThe federal government has used the provision, known as Section 5, to stop things that would have perverted our democracy, Payton said. His group represents Texans and organizations seeking to preserve the section./ppOn the other side are the utility district, an array of conservative legal groups and some Southern Republicans./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Marine leaves Philippines after court acquittal
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/22 08:41
|
A U.S. Marine whose rape conviction was overturned by the Philippine appeals court has left the country, the U.S. Embassy said Friday.
The news that Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith had departed the Philippines under the authority of United States military officials came a day after the Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's sentence — a decision that sparked protests, including one Friday in which about 200 demonstrators tried to march to the embassy before they were stopped by police.pThree years ago, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for raping a Filipino woman after a night of drinking./ppThe emotional case soon turned into a political tug-of-war between the government — keen on maintaining smooth relations with its key ally — and nationalist, left-wing and women's rights activists eager to showcase that the Philippines can do without U.S. protection./ppSmith spent only about three weeks in a Philippine jail before U.S. officials obtained custody, arguing that the Visiting Forces Agreement between the two countries allowed them to hold the Marine until his legal appeal was resolved./ppThe U.S. Embassy statement did not say when Smith left the country or where he was headed and the embassy spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for details./ppThis has been a difficult and emotional case for all involved, especially their families and loved ones. We hope that the parties can now move on with their lives, the statement said./p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Murtha Immune from Defamation Suit
Headline Legal News |
2009/04/14 13:50
|
Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha is immune from a defamation lawsuit over statements he made to the press, allegedly accusing U.S. Marines of slaughtering 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005, the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday. Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich said Murtha damaged his reputation by telling reporters that Wuterich and his fellow Marines massacred civilian men, women and children in cold blood in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005.
On Nov. 19, 2005, a roadside bomb detonated, killing a member of Wuterich's squad. Two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing fight. Iraqi witnesses said Marines slaughtered people in the street and in their homes to avenge their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas. Charges were brought against eight Marines, including four who were charged with murder. Many of the charges were later dropped.
In the wake of Haditha, Murtha gave a series of interviews to news outlets such as CNN and NPR. Wuterich said the congressman's statements provide the impression, implicitly or explicitly, that SSgt. Wuterich and others deliberately murdered innocent Iraqi civilians in a cold-blooded massacre and inappropriately compared the tragic events of Haditha with the infamous war crimes and deliberate wide-spread massacre of civilians at My Lai in Vietnam.
Murtha invoked the Westfall Act, which extends absolute immunity to federal employees acting in the course of their official duties. He also pointed to the fact that the attorney general's office had certified that his statements fell within the scope of his duties.
But the district court refused to certify the action under the Westfall Act pending discovery.
The federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., vacated the order denying certification and remanded with instructions to substitute the United States for Murtha as the defendant.
Senior Judge Edwards found insufficient evidence that Murtha's actions clearly exceeded the scope of his employment.
Further, Edwards said the case should be dismissed, because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Wuterich's tort claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribe Loses Battle over Land
Headline Legal News |
2009/03/19 11:01
|
An Oklahoma Indian tribe is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery in its attempt to regain control of land the federal government used for a military base, the D.C. Circuit ruled.
The Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma sued the United States to quiet title to land that President Chester Arthur had used for Fort Reno.
The Army stopped using Fort Reno in the 1930s, and the tribe claimed a reversionary interest. The two sides settled in 1965, and the government paid the tribe $15 million for the land.
The tribe sued to quiet title in 2004. The government argued that the settlement precluded any future quiet title actions, and that the 10-year statute of limitations had expired.
The district court dismissed, denying the tribe's motion to permit discovery of when the military stopped using Fort Reno. The court pointed to several times that the tribe should have known of government action that was adverse to its reversionary interests.
Judge Griffith upheld the decision.
We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery, given the absence of any specific indication from the Tribes regarding what facts additional discovery could produce that would affect the court's jurisdictional analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
