|
|
|
Court seems divided over Miranda rights case
Law Center |
2011/10/05 09:33
|
The Supreme Court seemed split Tuesday on whether to require police to read Miranda rights to prison inmates every time they interrogate them about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court heard arguments from lawyers from the state of Michigan who want a federal appeals court decision overturning Randall Lee Fields' conviction thrown out.
Fields was serving a 45-day sentence in prison on disorderly conduct charges when a jail guard and sheriff's deputies from Lenawee County, Mich., removed him from his cell and took him to a conference room. The deputies, after telling him several times he was free to leave at any time, then questioned him for seven hours about allegations that he had sexually assaulted a minor. Fields eventually confessed and was charged and convicted of criminal sexual assault.
Fields was then sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison but appealed the use of his confession, saying that he was never given his Miranda rights on the sexual assault charges.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out his confession and conviction, ruling that it is required that police read inmates their Miranda rights anytime they are isolated from the rest of the inmates in situations where they would be likely to incriminate themselves.
This case is another example of the courts' recent struggle to clearly define Miranda rights, which have been litigated since they first came into being in 1966. The courts require police to tell suspects in custody they have the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. Reaches Agreement-in-Principle to Settle Class Action
Class Action |
2011/10/04 11:22
|
Dynex Capital, Inc. announced today that it has entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted against all defendants of the class action lawsuit captioned In re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ. 1897 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”). The lawsuit was filed by the Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund in February 2005 and alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of purchasers of MERIT Series 12-1 and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds between February 2000 and May 2004. The memorandum of understanding sets forth terms of a proposed settlement whereby the Company would pay $7.5 million into an escrow account following the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and preliminary approval by the Court. The disbursement of the escrowed payment will be subject to notice to the class and final approval by the Court, in addition to any other conditions contained in the definitive settlement agreement. The Company continues to deny that it violated any federal securities laws and has agreed in principle to this settlement solely to eliminate the expense, burden and uncertainty of the litigation. The Company had not provided reserves for this litigation and accordingly the proposed settlement amount will be included as an expense in the Company’s financial statements for the third quarter of 2011. The proposed settlement amount will reduce earnings per share for the third quarter of 2011 by approximately $0.186 per common share. The proposed settlement does not impact the Company’s previously declared dividend for the third quarter of $0.27 per common share. “This settlement will resolve legacy litigation so that we may continue to focus on the long-term future of our business,” said Thomas B. Akin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “It will settle a significant uncertainty and does not materially impact the core operating or future earnings potential of the Company.” Separately the Company announced that it expects to exercise its option to refinance in October 2011 approximately $74.2 million in collateralized financings with repurchase agreement financing in order to take advantage of the lower interest rate environment and reduce its overall borrowing costs. Approximately $23.7 million in the collateralized financings is a securitization financing bond issued by the Company in 1998 and which finances commercial mortgage loans included in the Company’s financial statements. The bond had recently been upgraded to ‘AA’ from ‘A+’ reflecting the high quality of the associated loan collateral. Overall the refinancing is expected to save the Company approximately $2.0 million annually in interest costs based on current anticipated market conditions and repurchase agreement financing terms (which are subject to change) and approximately $600,000 annually in amortization expense. The Company will take a one time non-cash charge of $2.0 million on the redemption of the securitization financing bond related to remaining unamortized discount recorded on the bond as of September 30, 2011. Consummation of the refinance is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, interest rates, the Company obtaining repurchase agreement financing on terms and conditions acceptable to the Company and the condition of repurchase financing markets generally. Dynex Capital, Inc. is an internally managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, which invests in mortgage assets on a leveraged basis. The Company invests in Agency and non-Agency RMBS and CMBS. The Company also has investments in securitized single-family residential and commercial mortgage loans originated by the Company from 1992 to 1998. Additional information about Dynex Capital, Inc. is available at www.dynexcapital.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court turns away appeal over commandments display
Breaking Legal News |
2011/10/04 11:18
|
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of an Ohio judge wanting to display a poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
The display has been covered with a drape since a federal judge ordered Richland County Common Pleas Judge James DeWeese to remove it in October 2009. DeWeese also had posted a label above it bearing the word "Censored."
DeWeese that he is disappointed but knew his effort to get the Supreme Court to hear the case was a long shot, the Mansfield News Journal reported.
"I will probably eventually take the display down," he told the newspaper.
DeWeese hung the poster in his Mansfield courtroom in 2006 after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower-court rulings that another Ten Commandment poster he hung in 2000 violated separation between church and state.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation sued, and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled the display endorsed religious views and was unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses to hear Maryland gun case
Court Watch |
2011/10/03 11:19
|
The Supreme Court won't hear a Maryland man's argument that the Second Amendment allows him to carry a gun outside of his home for self-defense.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Charles F. Williams Jr., who was arrested in 2007 for having his legally-purchased handgun outside his home without a state permit.
The high court has ruled there is a right to keep a gun in the home for protection. But gun advocates say people also have the constitutional right to carry their guns outside the house for self-protection.
Maryland courts say if the Supreme Court agrees with that theory "it will need to say so more plainly." The high court refused the opportunity on Monday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US soldier found not guilty in contractor death
Law Center |
2011/10/03 11:19
|
A U.S. soldier has been found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility in the killing of a Hungarian civilian contractor in Iraq, military officials said Saturday.
Pfc. Carl T. Stovall had pleaded not guilty in the March 2009 shooting of Hungarian laborer Tibor Bogdan near Camp Taji, just north of Baghdad. Bogdan was shot while digging a hole at the camp.
The shooting came less than a month into Stovall's third deployment to the Middle East.
He opted to be tried by a military judge at Fort Hood instead of a jury. Testimony was heard this past week.
In a statement Saturday, officials with the military post said the court ordered Stovall to receive a psychiatric/psychological evaluation before a post-trial hearing is conducted on Nov. 10. Stovall faced a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole.
Stovall had allegedly once told investigators he believed Bogdan, who worked for a contractor specializing in trash and waste removal, was a terrorist planting a roadside bomb. Prosecutors, however, said Stovall, now 28, has changed his story multiple times, allegedly denying any involvement in one version. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fannie Mae ignored misconduct
Law Center |
2011/10/03 11:18
|
Mortgage giant Fannie Mae knew about allegations of improper foreclosure practices by law firms in 2003 but did not act to stop them, a government watchdog says.
Similar allegations are the subject of a probe by state attorneys general into how lenders and law firms ignored proper procedures to handle a crush of foreclosure paperwork.
An unnamed shareholder warned Fannie Mae of alleged foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general for the agency that regulates Fannie says in a report being released Tuesday.
Fannie Mae responded by hiring a law firm to investigate the claims in 2005. The law firm reported in 2006 that it had found foreclosure attorneys in Florida "routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits."
Fannie officials said they told a government official about the law firm's findings in 2006. That unnamed official, who now works for Fannie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he couldn't recall the conversation, the report says. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court appears to favor Ala. death row inmate
Court Watch |
2011/10/02 11:19
|
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to order a new court hearing for an Alabama death row inmate who lost the chance to appeal his death sentence because of a mailroom mix-up at a venerable New York law firm.
Both conservative and liberal justices indicated they would throw out a federal appeals court ruling that relied on the missed deadline to refuse to consider Cory Maples' claims that he received inadequate legal representation, dating back to his trial on charges he gunned down two friends in 1995.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor, said he did not understand why Alabama fought so hard to deny Maples the right to appeal when the deadline passed "though no fault of his own."
Justice Antonin Scalia was the only member of the court who appeared to agree with the state's argument that Maples' protests are overblown because he was never left without a lawyer. The state also says the role of Maples' lawyers in missing the deadline is unfortunate but nothing the court should correct under its earlier rulings.
Gregory Garre, a former solicitor general who is representing Maples in the Supreme Court, said the earlier legal work for Maples was so bad that it violated the Constitution.
Whatever the shortcomings of Maples' trial lawyers, he appeared to "win the lottery" when two lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell agreed to represent him for free in his appeals, Garre said. The New York-based firm has 800 lawyers and offices in a dozen cities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
