|
|
|
Oklahoma considers foreign law court ban
U.S. Court News |
2013/02/15 14:48
|
Oklahoma lawmakers are considering banning judges in the state from basing any rulings on foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law.
A Senate panel on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which has broad support in the Republican-controlled Legislature. The bill would specifically make void and unenforceable any court, arbitration or administrative agency decision that doesn't grant the parties affected by the ruling "the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions."
"This is a way to protect American citizens ... where somebody may try to use any kind of foreign law or religious law to affect the outcome of a trial," said Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, who sponsored the bill. Shortey described it as "American Law for American Courts."
A handful of other states have laws aimed at keeping courts from basing decision on foreign legal codes, including Islamic law. Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that would have specifically prohibited courts from considering Sharia law, but a federal judge blocked its implementation after a Muslim community leader alleged it discriminates against his religion.
Shortey said he didn't know of an instance in Oklahoma where a judge has relied on foreign laws, but he said there have been cases in other states.
That prompted state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, to describe the measure as a "solution that's looking for a problem." Crain was the only member of the Senate committee to vote against the bill. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases
U.S. Court News |
2013/01/09 20:04
|
The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.
The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.
The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.
In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scottsdale considers law firm contract in suit
U.S. Court News |
2012/11/06 10:48
|
The City Council in Scottsdale is poised to approve a $350,000 contract with a law firm it has hired to defend a former officer in a wrongful death lawsuit over the last of his six fatal shootings.
The city hired Struck, Wieneke & Love to defend former officer James Peters in a suit filed by the relatives of John Loxas and the American Civil Liberties Union. The City Council is set to consider the contract on Nov. 13, according to the Arizona Republic reports.
Peters fatally shot Loxas on Feb. 14 after police were called to his house. He was unarmed and holding his 7-month-old grandson in his doorway when Peters shot him in the head.
The shooting was the officer's seventh since 2002. He has since retired with an accidental disability pension of $4,547 per month, according to the city.
Another firm is defending the city and other officials under a contract worth up to $50,000.
The suit was filed on Sept. 24 and claims, among other things, that city officials failed to adequately investigate the previous shootings. It alleges that the city and Police Chief Alan Rodbell didn't establish adequate policies to protect against the "unreasonable use of force by its officers."
The suit seeks unspecified damages against Peters, the city, Rodbell and Detective Brian McWilliams. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court upholds RI lawyer's corruption conviction
U.S. Court News |
2012/10/10 13:04
|
A federal appeals court has upheld the corruption conviction of a former North Providence town attorney who facilitated bribes to three town councilmen.
Robert Ciresi was convicted in April 2011 of bribery, extortion and conspiracy charges. The jury found he arranged and delivered a $25,000 bribe to then-Councilman John Zambarano after the town council rezoned a plot of land so a supermarket could be built there. Ciresi also helped put Zambarano in touch with a middleman on a separate $75,000 bribe related to a mill development.
Among other issues, Ciresi’s lawyers argued to the appeals court that the lower court incorrectly allowed prosecutors to play for the jury audiotapes that were made of Zambarano discussing Ciresi’s role in the scheme, arguing it constituted hearsay evidence.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday disagreed and upheld the conviction, as well as Ciresi’s sentence of five years and three months in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
