|
|
|
Appeals court upholds slugger Bonds' conviction
Legal Spotlight |
2013/09/18 13:46
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld former Giants slugger Barry Bonds' obstruction-of-justice conviction stemming from rambling testimony he gave during a 2003 appearance before a grand jury investigating elite athletes' use of performance-enhancing drugs.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bonds' testimony was ''evasive'' and capable of misleading investigators and hindering their probe into a performance-enhancing-drug ring centered at the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, better known as BALCO.
In a statement Friday night, Bonds said he was disappointed but he has instructed his attorneys to ask that he be allowed to immediately begin serving his sentence of 30 days of house arrest and two years of probation.
''Meanwhile, I also intend to seek further judicial review of the important legal issues presented by the appeal that was decided today,'' Bonds said. ''This has been a long and difficult chapter in my life and I look forward to moving beyond it once I have fulfilled the penalties ordered by the court.''
Like several other prominent athletes who testified before the grand jury, Bonds was granted immunity from criminal prosecution as long as he testified truthfully.
But after Bonds repeatedly denied knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs - he testified he thought he was taking flax seed oil and other legal supplements - prosecutors charged him with obstruction and with making false statements.
A jury convicted Bonds of a single felony count of obstruction, stemming from when he was called before the grand jury in San Francisco in December 2003. Bonds was asked whether his trainer, Greg Anderson, had ever injected him with a substance, and he replied by discussing the difficulties of being the son of a famous father. Bonds' father is former major leaguer Bobby Bonds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio kidnap suspect in court, plea talks ongoing
Legal Spotlight |
2013/07/26 10:00
|
Prosecutors and lawyers for a Cleveland man accused of holding three women captive in his home for more than a decade signaled Wednesday that they are talking about a possible plea deal.
With a trial less than two weeks away, there was no mention of whether the prosecutor will seek the death penalty. Attorneys for Ariel Castro, 53, say a deal is dependent on taking it off the table.
"My understanding is that the parties have discussed possible pleas and that you're working to see if that would be an effective resolution, is that correct?" Judge Michael Russo asked.
Both sides responded "yes" without elaboration and left the courtroom without commenting. Last month, the judge had mentioned the possibility of a plea deal raised by the defense.
Castro mostly kept his head down during the brief hearing and quietly answered "yes" to routine questions from the judge.
The hearing focused on the trial date, Aug. 5, and whether the prosecution had provided its evidence to the defense in a timely fashion, as required. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Ex-Im Bank needs to explain Air India loan
Legal Spotlight |
2013/06/20 16:19
|
A federal bank that backed a huge airplane loan for Air India will have to explain that the loan didn't hurt U.S. airlines.
A lawsuit by Delta Air Lines Inc. had accused the Export-Import Bank of failing to follow a requirement that it makes sure its loans to foreign companies won't hurt U.S. competitors. The Ex-Im bank guaranteed $3.4 billion in loans in 2011 so that Air India could buy planes from Boeing Co. But Delta competes with Air India on some routes.
The Court of Appeals in Washington did not force the bank to reverse the loan guarantee, as Delta had asked. But the ruling says the bank needs to follow the law and provide more justification for the loan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appellate court to consider Calif. paparazzi law
Legal Spotlight |
2013/02/08 08:54
|
A judge has declined to reconsider his ruling dismissing charges filed under California's ant-paparazzi law which will trigger a full appeal before a panel of judges who have indicated they believe the law is constitutional.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Rubinson issued a notice on Monday declining to reconsider his decision to dismiss two charges against photographer Paul Raef, court records show. The judge ruled last year that the 2010 law was overly broad and violated the First Amendment, but Los Angeles prosecutors appealed the decision.
A three-judge appeals panel asked Rubinson to reconsider his ruling and indicated in a filing Jan. 28 that it believes the law is constitutional. The filing was issued based on a brief filed by prosecutors.
Raef was charged after authorities accused him of being involved in a high speed chase of Justin Bieber last year. He is the first person charged under the 2010 law that increased penalties for reckless driving by people trying to get photos for commercial gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court won't stop embryonic stem cell research
Legal Spotlight |
2013/01/08 16:24
|
The Supreme Court won't stop the government's funding of embryonic stem cell research, despite some researchers' complaints that the work relies on destroyed human embryos.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from two scientists who have been challenging the funding for the work.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia earlier this year threw out their lawsuit challenging federal funding for the research, which is used in pursuit of cures to deadly diseases. Opponents claimed the National Institutes of Health was violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo.
Researchers hope one day to use stem cells in ways that cure spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other ailments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY Court: Gay Marriage Caucus Didn’t Break Rules
Legal Spotlight |
2012/07/09 14:57
|
A state appeals court rejected a challenge to New York’s year-old same-sex marriage law Friday, ruling closed-door negotiations among senators and gay marriage supporters, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, did not violate any laws.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Rochester ruled against gay marriage opponents who argued that Republican state senators violated New York’s open meeting rules ahead of the law’s passage last year.
The marriage law was given final legislative approval by the state Senate after weeks of intensive lobbying and swiftly signed by Cuomo, making New York the largest state to legalize same-sex weddings. Same-sex couples began marrying by the hundreds on July 24, 2011, the day the law became official. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Union must give fee increase notice
Legal Spotlight |
2012/06/21 11:17
|
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unions must give nonmembers an immediate chance to object to unexpected fee increases or special assessments that all workers are required to pay in closed-shop situations.
The court ruled for Dianne Knox and other nonmembers of the Service Employees International Union's Local 1000, who wanted to object and opt out of a $12 million special assessment the union required from its California public sector members for political campaigning. Knox and others said the union did not give them a legally required notice that the increase was coming.
The union, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the annual notice that the union gives was sufficient. The high court disagreed in a 7-2 judgment written by Justice Samuel Alito.
"When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment or dues increase, the union must provide a fresh ... notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent," Alito said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the judgment but wrote their own opinion. "When a public-sector union imposes a special assessment intended to fund solely political lobbying efforts, the First Amendment requires that the union provide non-members an opportunity to opt out of the contribution of funds," Sotomayor wrote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
