|
|
|
Supreme Court sides with 'Buckets of Money' financier
Court Updates |
2018/06/20 08:58
|
The Supreme Court is siding with a financial adviser known for his "Buckets of Money" retirement strategy who challenged the appointment of the administrative law judge who ruled against him in a fraud case.
The justices ruled Thursday that Raymond Lucia of California is entitled to a new hearing because the judge in his case was not properly appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 6-3 decision could affect administrative law judges in other federal agencies.
But the court declined to address a larger issue raised by the Trump administration. It wanted the justices to rule that the president has broad authority to fire certain officials.
The SEC already has changed the way it appoints its judges by requiring a vote by commissioners, instead of relying on staff members. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drug court graduates get second chance at life
Court Updates |
2018/06/17 08:58
|
Kevin Hunter's day job doesn't typically lend itself to feel-good moments, but he got to share in 34 of them Monday afternoon.
Hunter, a Fort Wayne police captain, was among the first to congratulate nearly three dozen graduates of the 45th Allen Superior Court Drug Court. He runs the police department's Vice and Narcotics Division, which often sees decidedly fewer happy outcomes for people it investigates.
"I usually talk about very depressing things," Hunter said. "Today, I get to see hope and action."
The court was established as one of the state's first in 1996 by the late Judge Ken Scheibenberger, and it allows drug dealers and users a chance at life without those substances. Hundreds have taken part in drug court, and many have had charges against them dismissed because they completed counseling and treatment programs.
Hunter, who joined the department in 1989, said the court is valuable, particularly as the opioid crisis rages in northeast Indiana. A vice and narcotics sergeant attends drug court meetings, he said.
The program offers positive options to people who once might have been arrested by officers, sent to court and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, said Hunter, a member of the county's Opioid Task Force.
"Many times it's (that) they made a bad choice," he said, referring to people who have sold or used drugs. "But they're still human beings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court allows Ohio, other state voter purges
Court Updates |
2018/06/10 00:27
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can clean up their voting rolls by targeting people who haven't cast ballots in a while.
The justices rejected, by a 5-4 vote Monday, arguments in a case from Ohio that the practice violates a federal law intended to increase the ranks of registered voters. A handful of other states also use voters' inactivity to trigger a process that could lead to their removal from the voting rolls.
Justice Samuel Alito said for the court that Ohio is complying with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. He was joined by his four conservative colleagues. The four liberal justices dissented.
Partisan fights over ballot access are being fought across the country. Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to suppress votes from minorities and poorer people who tend to vote for Democrats. Republicans have argued that they are trying to promote ballot integrity and prevent voter fraud.
Under Ohio rules, registered voters who fail to vote in a two-year period are targeted for eventual removal from registration rolls, even if they haven't moved and remain eligible. The state said it only uses the disputed process after first comparing its voter lists with a U.S. postal service list of people who have reported a change of address. But not everyone who moves notifies the post office, the state said.
So the state asks people who haven't voted in two years to confirm their eligibility. If they do, or if they show up to vote over the next four years, voters remain registered. If they do nothing, their names eventually fall off the list of registered voters.
"Combined with the two years of nonvoting before notice is sent, that makes a total of six years of nonvoting before removal," Alito wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in dissent, said the 1993 law prohibits removing someone from the voting rolls "by reason of the person's failure to vote. In my view, Ohio's program does just that."
In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Congress enacted the voter registration law "against the backdrop of substantial efforts by states to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters." The court's decision essentially endorses "the very purging that Congress expressly sought to protect against," Sotomayor wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California high court to rule on social media access
Court Updates |
2018/05/27 00:24
|
The California Supreme Court will decide whether Facebook and other social media companies must turn over user content to criminal defendants.
The justices are expected to rule Thursday in a case that has pitted some of Silicon Valley's biggest companies against public defenders.
At issue are requests by a defendant accused in a San Francisco slaying who wants videos and other content posted to Facebook and Instagram by the victim and a witness. The defendant, Lee Sullivan, and a co-defendant, Derrick Hunter, also sought information from Twitter.
Prosecutors charged the two men with murder in an alleged gang-related drive-by-shooting in 2013. Sullivan said the witness was his former girlfriend, and her social media posts would show she was jealous and angry because Sullivan was involved with other women.
The defendants say their constitutional right to a fair trial entitles them to the social media records to prepare their case. Attorneys for the companies say a federal privacy law prevents the release of user content, and the defendants have other ways to get the material.
They could ask the witness for her social media content and get the victim's information from prosecutors, who obtained a search warrant for his Facebook and Instagram accounts and are required to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense, the company's attorneys, Eric Miller and James Snell, wrote in a brief to the California Supreme Court.
Sullivan's attorneys have said they could not locate the witness to serve her with a subpoena. Both defendants also say access only to records that support the prosecution's theory of the case does not allow them to mount a complete defense, according to a 2015 appeals court ruling.
That ruling sided with the social media companies and rejected Sullivan and Hunter's requests for information.
"Criminal defendants are looking for a one-stop-shop, a fast lane to get the materials that social media sites might have," said Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law.
A decision by the California Supreme Court that overturns the appeals court ruling and sides with the defendants "could substantially change companies' practices," Goldman said.
Google in a brief filed in the case warned that loosening the rules around releasing information would undermine users' confidence in the privacy of their communications and "greatly increase" its burden from requests to disclose user information.
San Francisco's public defender's office countered in its own brief that prosecutors are increasingly offering social media records as evidence and "defendants have a parallel need for these records to defend against charges." |
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
