|
|
|
Supreme Court considers suit over 2001 detention of Muslims
Attorney Interview |
2017/01/15 23:23
|
Ahmer Abbasi speaks softly as he describes the strip searches, the extra shoves, the curses that he endured in a federal jail in Brooklyn following the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I don't think I deserved it," Abbasi said during a telephone interview with The Associated Press from his home in Karachi, Pakistan.
Abbasi's quiet, matter-of-fact tone belies his determination, even after 15 years, to seek justice in American courts — provided the Supreme Court will let him.
The justices on Wednesday are hearing an appeal from former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former FBI Director Robert Mueller and other former U.S. officials that seeks to shut down the lawsuit that human rights lawyers have filed on behalf of Abbasi and others over their harsh treatment and prolonged detention.
"Somebody has to be accountable, somebody has to be responsible," said Abbasi, 42, who works in real estate in Pakistan.
The former officials, including the top immigration enforcement officer and the warden and deputy warden at the New York City jail, say it should not be them.
"Senior government officials should not be regularly second-guessed by lawsuits seeking money damages from them in their personal capacity," said Richard Samp, chief counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation and author of a brief from four former attorneys general.
Abbasi was among more than 80 men who were picked up in the days and weeks following Sept. 11 on immigration violations. Until then, he said he had been "living the American dream" since coming from Pakistan in 1993. He was living in Jersey City, New Jersey, across the river from Manhattan and driving a taxi in New York.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Supreme Court halts death penalty measure
State Law Issues |
2016/12/22 23:30
|
The California Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a voter-approved measure intended to speed up the appeals process for the state's Death Row inmates to give it time to consider a lawsuit challenging the measure.
In a one-page decision, the court stayed the "implementation of all provisions of Proposition 66" and set a timeline for filing briefs in the case.
Proposition 66 would change how appeals are handled, appointing more lawyers to take cases, putting certain types of appeals before trial court judges and setting a five-year deadline for appeals to be heard. Currently, it can take longer than that for an attorney to be assigned to a case and upward of 25 years to exhaust appeals.
The lawsuit by former Attorney General John Van de Kamp and Ron Briggs, whose father wrote the ballot measure that expanded California's death penalty in 1978, said the reform measure would disrupt the courts, cost more money and limit the ability to mount proper appeals. They said the deadlines would set "an inordinately short timeline for the courts to review those complex cases" and result in attorneys cutting corners in their investigations.
Supporters of the measure have called the lawsuit a frivolous stall tactic.
California voters faced two death penalty measures on the November election. They rejected a measure that would have abolished the death penalty and narrowly approved Proposition 66.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio's high court dismisses media lawsuit over bodycam video
Legal Information |
2016/12/22 23:30
|
The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a public information lawsuit Tuesday without ruling on its argument that video from police body cameras are public record and should be released on request.
In not taking up the issue, the court noted that the video had already been released — two days after news organizations requested the footage in the July 19, 2015, traffic stop and fatal shooting of a black motorist by a white University of Cincinnati officer.
News organizations including The Associated Press sued Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters last year when he initially refused to release the police bodycam video. Deters released the material after the officer was indicted on charges including murder.
In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote that the prosecutor was entitled to review the video first to determine whether any information had to be redacted; she noted that Deters produced the footage six days after he received it.
"We conclude that he responded in a reasonable period of time," she said.
Deters said he was pleased with the decision, saying "it lets the prosecutor do his job to investigate cases before material is released to the media potentially jeopardizing future prosecution."
Attorney Jack Greiner, representing the media groups, called it a narrow decision with little precedent-setting value. He noted it doesn't affect a Dec. 6 ruling by the state Supreme Court that said video footage from police cruiser dash cameras is public record that, with some exceptions, should be promptly released upon request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to unseal Clinton email search warrant
State Law Issues |
2016/12/21 23:31
|
A federal court in New York is scheduled to release redacted copies Tuesday of the search warrant that allowed the FBI to dig into a trove of Hillary Clinton emails days before the presidential election.
The emails were found on a computer belonging to former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide.
A judge ruled Monday that the public had a right to see the warrant application, but said portions would be blacked out to conceal information about an ongoing investigation involving Weiner.
Federal agents have been probing his online contact with a teenage girl.
The discovery of the emails prompted FBI Director James Comey (KOH'-mee) to briefly reopen an investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
