Today's Date: Add To Favorites
U.S. Marshal "Guilty" of Selling Information
Court Watch | 2007/06/26 05:54

Jose Magallan, a Deputy assigned to the United States Marshal's  McAllen office, has pleaded guilty to two counts of exceeding his authorized access to information on a U. S. Government computer and accepting money for the information, United States Attorney Don DeGabrielle and Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General Dallas Field Office announced today. 

At a hearing before United States District Judge Vanessa Gilmore held today,   Jose Magallan, 52, of  McAllen, TX, admitted that on two separate occasions, in November 2006 and in January 2007, he accepted money from a private citizen to conduct an unauthorized search of the U. S. Marshals Service's computer system to obtain and deliver information.   Magallan admitted to receiving $500 for information he obtained in the first unauthorized access to information search and $450 for the second such search.  

Judge Gilmore, who accepted the guilty pleas and convicted Magallan of two counts alleged in the indictment, has set sentencing for October 9, 2007.  Magallan faces up to five years imprisonment and up to a $250,000 for each count of conviction.

Magallan, who has been free on bond since his arrest in April 2007 following return of the two count indictment,  has been permitted by the court to remain on bond pending his sentencing.

The investigation leading to the indictment of Magallan was conducted by Special Agents of the Dallas Field Office of the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorney Jim McAlister.  



Georgia Man Seeks Last Minute Clemency
Court Watch | 2007/06/25 11:55
A man set to die for killing his wife and two stepdaughters in 1987 deserves to live because he has remorse for the crimes, has tried to redeem himself in prison and the prosecutor at his trial acted improperly, a lawyer argued at a clemency hearing Monday.

John Hightower's attorney, Jack Martin, also said in his petition to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles that several jurors who convicted his client now support his bid for a reprieve.

"There is a terrible and profound irony in that Mr. Hightower is a person to whom family means so much, yet he has committed the act of destroying part of his family," Martin wrote in the petition.

"This fact is not lost on Mr. Hightower. His regret is intense."

As for the allegations against the man who prosecuted Hightower, Martin said that the district attorney at the time removed blacks as potential jurors during the trial over the objection of the defense. Hightower is black.

Martin also said that many of the death penalty sentences the prosecutor obtained before resigning in 1994 were reversed because of error.

The prosecutor, Joe Briley, who is now in private practice, did not immediately return a phone call to his office Monday seeking comment. A call to his home went unanswered.

Hightower's attorneys were trying several last-minute appeals -- including the clemency petition and a request to the U.S. Supreme Court for a delay -- to keep him from the death chamber. Absent any relief, he will be given a lethal injection on Tuesday.

Prosecutors were expected to appear before the parole board later Monday to argue for the execution to proceed.

Hightower, 63, was convicted for the July 12, 1987, slayings of his wife, Dorothy Hightower, and his two stepdaughters, Evelyn Reaves and Sandra Reaves, at a home in Milledgeville, in central Georgia.

If carried out, the execution would be Georgia's first in nearly two years.

Among the evidence investigators said they had against Hightower: a confession and a flesh- and blood-covered murder weapon found in the car he was driving when he was arrested. His clothes also were stained with blood.

According to authorities, Hightower admitted he had been having marital problems. In the admission, he said he had been drinking and snorting cocaine hours before he entered the home where the victims were, placed a gun under a pillow in the room he shared with his wife and waited for everyone to go to sleep.

At about 3 a.m, police say, Hightower retrieved the gun and shot each of the three victims in the head. A 3-year-old girl in the house was found unharmed.

Hightower was arrested about 90 minutes after the shootings while driving his wife's car.

The execution would be Georgia's first since Robert Conklin, a 44-year-old parolee who fatally stabbed a lawyer and dismembered the victim's body, was given a lethal injection on July 12, 2005.


Amy Baker Expected in KY Courtroom Today
Court Watch | 2007/06/25 11:22
Amy Baker, the woman who helped authorities solve the disappearance of foster child Marcus Fiesel, is expected inside a Kentucky courtroom today.

Baker is facing charges in Maysville, accused of helping dispose of Marcus' remains in the Ohio River.

The hearing today is a preliminary hearing for Amy Baker. A few things could happen during the hearing. She could accept a plea deal with prosecutors or go forward with a trial.

Baker is charged with tampering with evidence in the death of 3-year-old foster child Marcus Fiesel.

Ohio authorities gave Baker immunity for testifying against Liz and David Carroll, the couple convicted of killing Marcus.

Baker, 26, was the Carrolls' live-in girlfriend. Investigators said the Carrolls burned Marcus' remains and dumped them in the Ohio River after stuffing him inside a closet where he died last August.

Baker has reportedly said she would confess to the tampering with evidence charge and admit she helped dispose of the remains, if Mason County prosecutors would agree to no jail time.

Kentucky officials prosecuted the "star witness" in the Ohio case because the remains were dumped in the Ohio River, which is owned by the state of Kentucky.

Baker is no longer in the Mason County Jail. Her mother posted a $5,000 cash bond a few weeks ago.


Ottowa Loses Yet Another Mad Cow Battle
Court Watch | 2007/06/25 11:09
The federal government has lost yet another legal battle against a class-action lawsuit that accuses it of gross negligence in the mad cow crisis.

The statement of claim asserts, among other things, that Ottawa introduced a regulation in 1990 that specifically allowed the feeding of cattle parts to other cattle - the method through which bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, is transmitted.

It was only in 1997 that Canada banned the feeding of cattle to other cattle.

On Friday, the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to strike down two negligence claims brought against Ottawa by lead plaintiff Bill Sauer, a cattle producer near Niagara Falls, Ont.

The court upheld a lower court decision which found that more evidence was necessary before such a move could be justified.

The decision also dismissed Winnipeg-based cattle-feed company Ridley Canada’s attempt to have an allegation against it stricken from the suit, as well as an appeal from Sauer in which he attempted to have yet another allegation against Ridley reinstated.

The suit, launched in April 2005, represents cattle farmers from several provinces.

In May 2003, the discovery of an infected cow in Alberta prompted the United States to close its borders to Canadian cattle and precipitated the crisis.

It was estimated at the time that the industry suffered losses of some $7 billion.


High court: Guidelines presumed reasonable
Court Watch | 2007/06/22 06:00

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission were generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel they have been punished too harshly. By an 8-1 vote, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission were no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably.

The ruling, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, "simply recognizes the real-world circumstance that when the judge's discretionary decision accords with the Commission's view . . . it is probable that the sentence is reasonable."

The court's decision in Rita v. U.S. was the latest in a line of cases that have been redefining criminal sentencing since the court ruled in 2000 that the Constitution requires a jury to prove every fact that a judge might use to increase a defendant's sentence.

In 2005, the court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines - rules designed to ensure that similar crimes be punished similarly across the country - ran afoul of the jury-trial requirement. But it decided that the remedy was to make the guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, as they had been.

The case the court decided yesterday was meant to help define advisory.

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., upheld the sentence, saying that within-guidelines penalties are "presumptively reasonable."

This pattern has been repeated nationwide since the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling.

In that sense, legal analysts said, the court's decision at least left defendants no worse off than they had been.

In his dissent, Justice David H. Souter said that a presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences creates "gravitational pull" on judges, moving them toward reliance on the guidelines, and making it unclear what was accomplished by declaring the guidelines advisory in the first place.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with Breyer, wholly or in part.

In the past, Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg have joined Souter in supporting a strong right to a jury trial on all sentencing factors. But their acquiescence in yesterday's ruling appeared to reflect their belief that the court's 2005 decision was entitled to respect as precedent.



Justices make it harder to get lower sentences
Court Watch | 2007/06/21 10:15

The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for convicted criminals to argue on appeal that they should have received a lighter prison sentence than recommended by federal guidelines. By an 8-1 vote, the justices rejected arguments by a North Carolina man who sought less time in prison, and ruled that a sentence within the range set out by the guidelines may be presumed by a federal appeals court to be reasonable.

The guidelines set rules for judges to calculate punishment and attempt to reduce wide disparities in sentences for the same crime.

But critics of the guidelines say they often impose overly harsh sentences and take away a judge's discretion to look at the facts of the case and fit an appropriate punishment for each individual.

The ruling involved Victor Rita, who received 33 months in prison for making false statements during an investigation of illegal trafficking in machine gun kits. His sentence was at the bottom of the guideline range of 33 to 41 months.

Rita had sought a sentence lower than 33 months, based on his physical condition -- he has diabetes and other illnesses -- his likely vulnerability in prison and his military service in Vietnam and in Operation Desert Storm.

The Supreme Court upheld a U.S. appeals court's ruling that found Rita's sentence to be reasonable.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the majority opinion that the judge in the case properly analyzed the relevant factors and gave legally sufficient reasons for the sentence.

The ruling followed up on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in 2005 that federal judges no longer were bound by the sentencing guidelines that had been in effect for nearly 20 years, but must consult them and take them into account.

Justice David Souter dissented in Thursday's decision and said he would reject the presumption of reasonableness adopted in the case. He also urged Congress to revisit the issue of guidelines.





Motorcyclist Pleads Guilty to Homicide by Vehicle
Court Watch | 2007/06/20 11:30

Police say a motorcyclist and the woman riding with him were going more than 70 miles an hour -- and neither was wearing a helmet -- when the bike hit street sign and a concrete staircase in York County.

Thirty-four-year-old George Sparks Junior of Windsor pleaded guilty Tuesday to homicide by vehicle, reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol in the September 17th crash that killed 34-year-old Rhea Baldwin of Airville. Common Pleas Judge Penny Blackwell said Sparks' blood-alcohol level was zero-point-19 percent, more than twice the legal limit.

Sparks agreed to serve one to seven years in prison, have no alcohol for seven years, and turn in his motorcycle license. He could have been sentenced to more than 17 years in prison. Blackwell scheduled sentencing for July 23rd.



[PREV] [1] ..[171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179].. [205] [NEXT]
All
Class Action
Bankruptcy
Biotech
Breaking Legal News
Business
Corporate Governance
Court Watch
Criminal Law
Health Care
Human Rights
Insurance
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Law Center
Law Promo News
Legal Business
Legal Marketing
Litigation
Medical Malpractice
Mergers & Acquisitions
Political and Legal
Politics
Practice Focuses
Securities
Elite Lawyers
Tax
Featured Law Firms
Tort Reform
Venture Business News
World Business News
Law Firm News
Attorneys in the News
Events and Seminars
Environmental
Legal Careers News
Patent Law
Consumer Rights
International
Legal Spotlight
Current Cases
State Class Actions
Federal Class Actions
New Hampshire courts hear 2 ..
PA high court orders countie..
Tight US House races in Cali..
North Carolina Attorney Gene..
Republicans take Senate majo..
What to know about the unpre..
A man who threatened to kill..
Ford cuts 2024 earnings guid..
Kenya’s deputy president pl..
South Korean court acquits f..
Supreme Court grapples with ..
Supreme Court leaves in plac..
Kentucky sheriff accused of ..
New rules regarding election..
North Carolina appeals court..


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.
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Lorain Elyria Divorce Lawyer
www.loraindivorceattorney.com
Legal Document Services in Los Angeles, CA
Best Legal Document Preparation
www.tllsg.com
Car Accident Lawyers
Sunnyvale, CA Personal Injury Attorney
www.esrajunglaw.com
East Greenwich Family Law Attorney
Divorce Lawyer - Erica S. Janton
www.jantonfamilylaw.com/about
St. Louis Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer
St. Charles DUI Attorney
www.lynchlawonline.com
Connecticut Special Education Lawyer
www.fortelawgroup.com
  Law Firm Directory
 
 
 
© ClassActionTimes.com. All rights reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Class Action Times 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. Affordable Law Firm Web Design