“Bin Laden driver sentenced to 66 months in prison; In a surprise decision, a U.S. military jury sentenced Osama bin Laden’s driver to 5 ½ years in prison, knowing that with time served he could be free by New Year’s Eve”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.
Today in The Los Angeles Times, Carol J. Williams reports that “Yemeni gets 5 1/2 years in prison; With credit for time already served, Osama bin Laden’s driver should complete his sentence by January.”
The New York Times reports that “Bin Laden Driver Sentenced to a Short Term.”
The Washington Post reports that “Bin Laden Driver Gets 5 1/2 Years; U.S. Sought 30.”
In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Bin Laden Driver’s Sentence Signals Doubts About Cases.”
And USA Today reports that “Jury gives Hamdan 5 1/2 years.”
“Hamdan case sets stage for bigger trials at Guantanamo; The partial conviction may give the tribunal system a credibility boost and help the White House reach its goal: trial by year’s end for accused Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.” David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.
“Tactic Used After It Was Banned; Detainees at Guantanamo Were Moved Often, Documents Say”: The Washington Post contains this article today.
“Texas’s Disdain: In carrying out two executions, the state endangers Americans detained abroad.” This editorial appears today in The Washington Post.
“Bolten, Miers Ask Judge to Delay Order; Aides Continue to Contest Subpoenas”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers yesterday asked a federal judge to delay an order to cooperate with Congress while they appeal the ruling. The court filings indicate that Bolten and Miers will continue to resist subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee as the Bush administration heads into its final months.”
“Ford Told FBI of Skeptics on Warren Commission”: This article appears today in The Washington Post.
Pittsburgh-area woman receives no prison time following guilty plea to federal criminal charges of transmitting written obscenities in fictional stories posted to the internet: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today that “Writer’s ‘monsters’ lead to obscenity sentence.”
And today in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Jason Cato reports that “Donora woman’s child torture stories get her house arrest.”
I discussed the case in the October 9, 2006 installment of my “On Appeal” column for law.com, headlined “Text This: Words Alone Can Violate Federal Obscenity Laws.”
“Study Finds Settling Is Better Than Going to Trial”: Today in The New York Times, Jonathan D. Glater has an article that begins, “Note to victims of accidents, medical malpractice, broken contracts and the like: When you sue, make a deal. That is the clear lesson of a soon-to-be-released study of civil lawsuits that has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer.”
“What Next for D.C.’s Gun Laws: Congress should intervene to protect the Second Amendment.” David B. Kopel and Robert A. Levy have this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.
“Millions of Women Who Had Abortions Don’t Know It”: Columnist Ann Woolner has this essay online at Bloomberg News.
In commentary available online from FindLaw: Sherry F. Colb has an essay entitled “Is Sex a ‘Major Life Activity’? Why a Claim of Disability Discrimination Turns on the Answer to this Question.”
And Anthony J. Sebok has an essay entitled “Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court Embraces the ‘Loss of a Chance’ Doctrine: Why This Key Torts Decision May Convince Other State Supreme Courts to Follow Suit.”
“Wife of slain judge to get $5.2 million; Fulton payment ‘closes another chapter’ for Barnes, who lost her husband in ’05 courthouse killings”: This article appears today in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
And the Fulton County Daily Report reports today that “Wife of Slain Ga. Judge Settles Claims for $5.2 Million.”
“In Review of High Court Term, Justice Kennedy Still the Man in the Middle”: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal has this article today at law.com.
“Court says employers can’t limit a departing worker’s job future”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has a news update that begins, “California employers can’t limit their employees’ right to work for a competitor or solicit former clients after they leave the company, the state Supreme Court ruled today.”
You can access today’s ruling of the Supreme Court of California at this link.
“Court clears way for another immigrant’s execution”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “For the second time this week, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied an appeal from an illegal immigrant facing execution in Texas. Lawyers for killer Heliberto Chi went to the court Thursday claiming he should have been told he could get legal aid from the Honduran consulate.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Execution of Honduran allowed.”
“Gitmo jury gives bin Laden driver light sentence”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A military jury gave Osama bin Laden’s driver a stunningly lenient sentence on Thursday, making him eligible for release in just five months despite the prosecutors’ request for a sentence tough enough to frighten terrorists around the globe. Salim Hamdan’s sentence of 5 1/2 years, including five years and a month already served at Guantanamo Bay, fell far short of the 30 years to life that prosecutors wanted. It now goes for mandatory review to a Pentagon official who can shorten the sentence but not extend it.”
Reuters reports that “Bin Laden’s driver gets 5 1/2 years in prison.”
And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Gitmo jury sentences driver to 66 months.”
“Court Rejects Attempt to Amend Indictments After Plea Entry”: This article appears today in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.
The article reports on an interesting mandamus ruling that Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued yesterday on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Associated Press is reporting: An article reports that “Bin Laden driver to seek leniency from Gitmo jury.”
And in other news, “Court rejects suit opposing religion in vets care.” My earlier coverage of Tuesday’s Seventh Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Kamehameha Schools again being sued over admissions bias; Meanwhile, school sues previous plaintiffs over disclosure of settlement”: This article appears today in The Honolulu Advertiser.
Today’s edition of The Honolulu Star-Bulletin contains articles headlined “4 challenge racial preference; An attorney for the plaintiffs believes this case could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court” and “Big Island lawsuit focuses on settlement’s disclosure.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Hawaiian school’s admission fight back in court.”
“Senate Standstill to Let Obama or McCain Tip Balance on Courts”: James Rowley of Bloomberg News has a report that begins, “An election-year standstill in Senate confirmation of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees will give the next president a chance to tip the ideological balance of U.S. appeals courts that decide such issues as job discrimination, national security and pollution-cleanup disputes. The Democratic-controlled Senate has stopped filling vacancies on appeals courts, which in many respects have greater impact than the Supreme Court. The high court decides about 70 cases each year, while the 13 appellate courts issue thousands of rulings.”
You can view a list of current federal judicial vacancies by clicking here, while a list of future vacancies can be viewed at this link.
The list of future vacancies reveals three additional federal appellate court vacancies that will be occurring in the months ahead. Seventh Circuit Judge Kenneth F. Ripple plans to take senior status on September 1, 2008. D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph plans to take senior status on November 1, 2008. And Eleventh Circuit Judge R. Lanier Anderson plans to take senior status on January 31, 2009.
“Three charged in bombing of downtown federal court house”: The San Diego Union-Tribune provides this news update. You can access the indictment at this link.
And The Associated Press reports that “3 charged in federal courthouse bombing in Calif.”
Under the U.S. Supreme Court‘s ruling in Georgia v. Randolph, when a wife consents to a police search of the marital home but the husband objects, can the police validly rely on the wife’s consent to search after the husband is arrested and taken to jail? A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued this decision today.
Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion joined. According to the majority’s holding, the husband’s objection to the search no longer precluded a valid search based solely on the wife’s consent once the husband had been arrested and taken from the scene.
Circuit Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner dissented. Her dissenting opinion begins:
There is one and only one reason that this case is not on all fours with Georgia v. Randolph: When Kevin Henderson told the police to “get the fuck out” out of his house, the officers arrested and removed him instead. Until that moment, Henderson was both a present and actual objector to the search of his home. Had he remained on the premises, his objection would have foreclosed the police from searching the house regardless of his wife’s consent; only a warrant would have broken the tie and permitted the search. My colleagues conclude that Henderson’s valid arrest and removal from the scene sapped his objection of its force and allowed the police to search the house with Patricia Henderson’s consent. In my view, this interprets the admittedly limited Randolph decision too narrowly. I would hold that Henderson’s objection survived his involuntary removal from the home, thus precluding the search in the absence of a warrant. See United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Melloy, J., dissenting).
Here’s hoping that the Seventh Circuit grants rehearing en banc to consider further this very interesting legal issue.
“Ninth Circuit Court Retreats to Idaho: Legal insiders point everywhere but at themselves during a sun-filled non-examination.” LA Weekly has posted online this article by Cyrus Sanai. Page two of the article mentions “How Appealing.”
And the Ninth Circuit’s web site has posted this photo montage of the event.
“3 states to consider affirmative action ban”: The Associated Press provides this report.
“Bin Laden driver convicted at Guantanamo of aiding terror; Salim Ahmed Hamdan is found guilty of providing material support for Al Qaeda; But he is acquitted of more serious conspiracy charges”: Carol J. Williams of The Los Angeles Times has this news update.
The New York Times has a news update headlined “Detainee Convicted by Military Panel.”
And The Washington Post has a news update headlined “Bin Laden’s Former Driver Convicted by Military Tribunal; Trial Is First Test of System Set up to Try Guantanamo Detainees.”
“Military jury convicts bin Laden’s driver”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A jury of six military officers at Guantanamo Bay reached a split verdict Wednesday in the war crimes trial of a former driver for Osama bin Laden, clearing him of some charges but convicting him of others that could send him to prison for life.”
Reuters reports that “U.S. convicts bin Laden’s driver at Guantanamo.”
And Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald has a news update headlined “Bin Laden’s driver found guilty of war crimes” that begins, “A U.S. military jury convicted Osama bin Laden’s driver of providing material support for terror on Wednesday — but cleared him of the more serious charge of conspiracy at the first U.S. war crimes tribunal since World War II.”
“Abu Ghraib contractor CACI loses defamation suit; Court affirms dismissal of Abu Ghraib contractor CACI’s lawsuit against talk radio network”: The Associated Press provides this report.
My earlier coverage of yesterday’s Fourth Circuit ruling appears at this link.
“Medellin executed for rape, murder of Houston teens”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle, along with an article headlined “Somber tribute held to the teen victims; Group gathers where 2 girls slain and neighborhood was shaken to core.”
The New York Times reports today that “Texas Executes Mexican Despite Objections.”
The Washington Post reports that “Mexican National Executed in Texas; Murder Conviction Drew Attention of International Court.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “Texas executes Mexican killer amid international protests; The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to grant a reprieve urged by Mexico and an international court; Jose Ernesto Medellin was convicted of raping and killing two Texas teens in 1993.”
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Texas executes Mexican national.”
The Associated Press provides reports headlined “Mexican-born killer put to death in Texas” and “Execution prompts concern for detained Mexicans.”
Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Divided U.S. Supreme Court Allows Mexican National’s Execution.”
And Reuters reports that “Texas defies World Court with execution.”
“No verdict in Day 2 of Guantanamo deliberations”: Carol Rosenberg has this article today in The Miami Herald.
And The New York Times reports today that “Guantanamo Bay Judge Admits Possible Error.”
“E-Mail Hacking Case Could Redefine Online Privacy”: The Washington Post today contains an article that begins, “A federal appeals court in California is reviewing a lower court’s definition of ‘interception’ in the digital age, in a case that some legal experts say could weaken consumer privacy protections online.”
“Our Class-Action System Is Unconstitutional: Judges have no right to award money to nonplaintiffs.” George Krueger and Judd Serotta have this op-ed today in The Wall Street Journal.
Available online from National Public Radio: Yesterday evening’s broadcast of “All Things Considered” contained an audio segment entitled “Professor Tries To Correct Century-Old Court Error.” And Monday evening’s broadcast contained audio segments entitled “Jury Deliberates In Hamdan Case” and “Book Examines Case Against Bin Laden’s Driver.”
Yesterday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition” contained an audio segment entitled “Fate Of Bin Laden Driver In Military Jury’s Hands.”
RealPlayer is required to launch these audio segments.
Fourth Circuit affirms entry of summary judgment in favor of Air America Radio on defamation case involving the notorious U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq: You can access today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at this link.
“Trial could bring US closer to closing Guantanamo”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The war crimes trial of a driver for Osama bin Laden could bring the United States closer to its goal of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”
“No reprieve for Mexican-born killer in Texas”: The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Mexican-born condemned prisoner Jose Medellin’s request for a reprieve.”
The Houston Chronicle provides a news update headlined “Court denies Medellin’s request for stay of execution.”
And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Medellin execution allowed.”
You can access this evening’s 5-4 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court at this link.
