|
|
|
Court grants Texas prisoner execution reprieve
Court Line News |
2014/12/05 15:08
|
A federal appeals court halted Wednesday's scheduled execution of a Texas killer whose attempt to subpoena Jesus Christ as a trial witness and other behavior led his attorneys to argue he is too mentally ill for capital punishment.
Scott Panetti, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia some 14 years before fatally shooting his estranged wife's parents in 1992, was granted the reprieve less than eight hours before he was set to receive a lethal injection. In stopping the execution, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the legal complexity of putting a mentally ill inmate to death.
In a two-sentence ruling, the court said it needs time to "fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue in this matter" and that it will schedule briefings and hearings to consider arguments.
The Texas attorney general's office said it has no immediate plans to appeal and that state attorneys will present arguments to the 5th Circuit once the court sets a date for them.
Panetti's lawyers described him as delusional and argued that he was too mentally ill to qualify for capital punishment and they sought the delay so Panetti could undergo new competency examinations.
Panetti, who acted as his own trial lawyer, testified as an alternate personality he called "Sarge" to describe the slayings of Joe and Amanda Alvarado. He wore a purple cowboy outfit, including a big cowboy hat, during trial and largely ignored a standby attorney the judge appointed to assist him.
Appeals also were before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has said mentally ill people cannot be executed if they don't have a factual and rational understanding of why they're being punished. The high court took no action once the lower court stopped the punishment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health overhaul's subsidies at Supreme Court
Court Line News |
2014/10/30 10:09
|
Supreme Court justices have their first chance this week to decide whether they have the appetite for another major fight over President Barack Obama's health care law.
Some of the same players who mounted the first failed effort to kill the law altogether now want the justices to rule that subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their premiums under the law are illegal.
The challengers are appealing a unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. The appeal is on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Friday, and word of their action could come as early as Monday.
The fight over subsidies is part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law. Republican candidates have relentlessly attacked Democrats who voted for it, and the partisanship has continued on the federal bench. Every judge who has voted to strike down the subsidies was appointed by a Republican president.
The appeal has arrived at the Supreme Court at a curious time; there is no conflicting appeals court ruling that the justices often say is a virtual requirement for them to take on an issue. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited that practice, for example, as a reason she and her colleagues decided not to take on the same-sex marriage issue. And in the gay marriage cases, both sides were urging the court to step in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court-martial for Missouri drill sergeant resumes
Court Line News |
2014/09/29 15:40
|
The military court-martial of a Missouri sergeant accused of sexually assaulting eight female soldiers has resumed.
A verdict is expected Wednesday after a three-day trial for 30-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Angel M. Sanchez, who is accused of using his supervisory position with the 14th Military Police Brigade to threaten some of the women he was tasked with training.
Sanchez pleaded guilty to three charges at the outset of the military judicial hearing. His accusers said the incidents took place in the bathroom of the female barracks as well as in an office shared by drill sergeants.
Most of the allegations involved women at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, but some involved women in Afghanistan and Fort Richardson, Alaska. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
German court: church facilities can ban headscarf
Court Line News |
2014/09/29 15:39
|
A German federal court has ruled that church-run institutions are within their rights to refuse to allow Muslim employees to wear headscarves at work.
The Federal Labor Court ruled Wednesday on a case brought by a former nurse at a Protestant church-linked hospital.
In 2010, the woman offered to return to work after maternity and sickness leave totaling four years and said she wanted to wear her headscarf at work. The hospital said no, and the woman went to court to seek compensation.
The federal court ruled that wearing a headscarf as a religious symbol isn't compatible with a contractual obligation to "neutral behavior" in a church-run facility. But it sent the woman's case back to a lower court, citing doubts over whether the hospital was technically a church institution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court reverses woman's conviction in child's death
Court Line News |
2014/09/22 16:14
|
A state appeals court Wednesday overturned the conviction of a South Texas woman imprisoned for capital murder in the 2006 salt poisoning death of her 4-year-old foster son.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a new trial for Hannah Overton of Corpus Christi. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole in the death of Andrew Burd.
Overton has argued she had ineffective counsel during her 2007 trial, and the state's highest appeals court agreed.
The court in its ruling noted Overton's defense attorneys opted not to present the testimony of an expert medical witness. The court said it "was not a reasonable decision" to withhold testimony by the physician that could have benefited Overton.
She also argued that prosecutors had withheld evidence in her trial, but the appeals court did not address that claim.
Overton contended Andrew had emotional and medical problems, including an eating disorder in which he'd consume odd food items. The boy had elevated sodium levels when he died at a Corpus Christi hospital. Tests also showed he had bleeding on the brain and swelling. A doctor who examined the child testified at Overton's trial that he could have survived if taken to the hospital earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee man pleads guilty to forgery
Court Line News |
2014/08/11 11:07
|
A Tennessee man has pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery of the signatures of a district court judge and an officer of the U.S. District Court.
U.S. District Judge Pamela L. Reeves set sentencing for 49-year-old Scott Thibault of Maryville for Dec. 1 in Knoxville. Thibault entered the plea Wednesday.
Prosecutors say Thibault has also agreed to plead guilty to one-count information of use of the mail to defraud.
Prosecutors say Thibault falsely represented himself as an attorney in an adoption case and forging the name of U.S. District Judge Thomas Varlan on the documents.
Thibault told the court he obtained at least $400,000 from the victims to further his scheme to defraud and obtain money. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
