News -
Legal Marketing News
Bookmark This Site
Arizona sheriff shifts blame over disobeying court order
U.S. Court News | 2015/04/23 16:25
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.


Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court
U.S. Court News | 2015/01/20 12:03
An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.

But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.

At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.

Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.

Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases.


Argentine court says US fugitive can be extradited
U.S. Court News | 2015/01/05 15:38
Argentina's Supreme Court has ruled that an American who took refuge and started a new life in the South American country can be extradited to face charges that he killed his wife over a decade ago, a court spokeswoman confirmed Saturday.

Kurt Sonnenfeld moved to Argentina in 2003 and sought asylum after prosecutors in Denver charged him with first-degree murder. The decision to extradite him brings to an end a longstanding dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Argentine courts that centered in part on differences over the death penalty.

In the ruling, which was made Dec. 11, the justices said U.S. prosecutors had assured Argentina that "the death penalty will not be imposed, or if it were ruled, it will not be exercised in this case." The ruling said the executive branch will have final say on an extradition and doesn't specify when it may take place.

Maria Bourdin, a spokeswoman for Argentina's Supreme Court, confirmed the ruling but declined to comment beyond what was in it. Calls to the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires on Saturday seeking comment were not immediately returned.


Appeals court rules against imprisoned American
U.S. Court News | 2014/11/17 15:51
A federal appeals court has ruled against a government subcontractor imprisoned in Cuba who is seeking to sue the U.S. government for the destruction of his business.

Alan Gross was detained in December 2009 while setting up Internet access as a subcontractor for the U.S. government's Agency for International Development. It was his fifth trip to Cuba to work with Jewish communities on building Internet access that bypassed local censorship.

Cuba considers USAID programs illegal attempts by the U.S. to undermine the Cuban government. Gross was tried and sentenced to 15 years in prison in Cuba, where he remains. Gross and his wife sued for negligence.

In a 3-0 decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the U.S. government is immune from any claim arising in a foreign country. It affirmed a lower court judge's dismissal of the case.

The Grosses said the government is cloaking itself in immunity after sending Gross into a situation it knew would be dangerous.

Scott Gilbet, a lawyer representing the Grosses, said he will be seeking further review in the courts and that "we are very disappointed in the decision."

The $60 million lawsuit blames the U.S. government and the contractor Gross was working for, Maryland-based Development Alternatives Inc., for failing to appropriately prepare him for his work in Cuba. The Gross family settled for an undisclosed amount with Development Alternatives.


[PREV] [1] ..[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77].. [105] [NEXT]
All
Legal News
Law Firm News
Court News
U.S. Court News
Legal Line News
Legal News Feed
Law Firm Press
Legal Opinions
Amazon workers strike at multiple faci..
TikTok asks Supreme Court to temporari..
Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin parent..
US inflation ticked up last month as s..
Court seems reluctant to block state b..
Harvey Weinstein hospitalized after ‘..
Romanian court orders a recount of pre..
Judge blocks Louisiana law requiring t..
PA high court orders counties not to c..
Court overturns actor Jussie Smollett'..
Tight US House races in California as ..
North Carolina Attorney General Josh S..
High court won’t review Kari Lake’s ..
What to know about the unprecedented f..
A man who threatened to kill Democrati..


   Law Firm Networks
San Francisco Trademark Lawyer
San Francisco Copyright Lawyer
www.onulawfirm.com
Eugene Criminal Defense Attorneys
Eugene DUI Lawyer. Oregon Criminal Defense
www.mjmlawoffice.com
New York Adoption Lawyers
New Jersey Adoption Attorneys
New York Foster Care Lawyers
www.lawrsm.com

Law Firm News Updates
Legal News Updates
Click The Law News
Daily Legal News
Legal News Voice
Recent Legal News
 
 
©Legal Marketing News. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal Marketing News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Also this site may contain legal advice, legal opinions, and statements of various legal information providers. The Content contained on the site has been prepared by Legal Marketing News as a service to its readers and is not intended to constitute legal or professional advice, which is always fact specific. Criminal Law Firm Website Design