|
|
|
Court seems divided over Miranda rights case
Court News |
2011/10/06 09:34
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court turns away appeal over commandments display
Court News |
2011/10/04 11:27
|
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 sets aside class-action suit by Costco women
Court News |
2011/09/22 03:45
|
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Walmart ruling, a federal appeals court set aside - but did not dismiss - a class-action suit by more than 700 women who accused discount retailer Costco of using an "old-boys' network" to bypass them for promotions.
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in 2007 that the women had presented enough evidence of a "common culture" at Costco to proceed with a single nationwide suit against the company, rather than file individual claims.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision Friday, relying in part on the Supreme Court's ruling in June dismissing a class action against Walmart by as many as 1.5 million female employees. The high court said the women had failed to show a company-wide policy that allegedly led to gender-based disparities in pay and promotions.
Likewise, the appeals court said, the Costco plaintiffs have not yet shown that they have enough in common to justify a class action.
The court said opposing expert witnesses disagreed about a central issue - whether the company promoted women less often than men in all regions or only a few - and said U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel should have resolved the dispute before letting the case proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reinstates $675,000 damages for downloading
Court News |
2011/09/21 23:45
|
A federal appeals court has reinstated a $675,000 judgment against a Boston University student who illegally downloaded and shared songs on the Internet.
In 2009, a jury in Boston awarded $675,000 to the Recording Industry Association of America, representing four record labels, in a lawsuit filed against Joel Tenenbaum.
A judge later reduced the award to $67,500, finding the original penalty "unconstitutionally excessive."
In his appeal, Tenenbaum sought to overturn the penalty. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the full award in a ruling Friday.
Tenenbaum's lawyers argue that federal copyright laws and the Digital Theft Deterrence Act were not meant to target consumers. Lawyers representing the recording industry argue that the economic impact of illegal downloading is much greater than the sharing of one song. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class Action Filed Against Former, Current A&P Execs
Court News |
2011/09/20 23:46
|
A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (A&P) for the period between July 23, 2009, and Dec. 10, 2010. The complaint, filed Sept. 9 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, Philadelphia and Atlanta, claims that some former and current A&P executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A&P itself wasn’t named as a defendant in the action because it filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2010.
Those named in the action are former Executive Chairman and CEO Christian Haub, former CEO and President Eric Claus, former CFO and Treasurer Brenda Galgano, Vice Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer Andreas Guldin, former CEO and President Ron Marshall, and current CEO and President Sam Martin.
The complaint alleges that during the period mentioned above, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the class action alleges that the executives failed to reveal that A&P was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as Walmart and Target, which negatively affected its business and financial condition; that the Pathmark acquisition was a “complete disaster” for the company, as Pathmark’s operations were in far worse condition than had been represented to investors; that A&P wasn’t operating according to internal expectations and couldn’t achieve the guidance endorsed by the defendants; and that, as a result of these factors, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its operations and prospects.
The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of A&P securities during the period noted above. Those who are member of this class can view a copy of the complaint or join the class action online at www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aandp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News 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. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
