|
|
|
Court lifts execution reprieve for San Antonio hit man
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/10/22 21:15
|
Texas' highest criminal court lifted a reprieve on Wednesday that, for the second time in a decade, prevented a convicted hit man from being executed for the 1992 slaying of a San Antonio woman.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't rule on the merits of the appeal filed by 44-year-old Rolando Ruiz, who was five days away from execution when the court stepped in on Aug. 26. Instead, the court ruled that his appeal was not legally proper and dismissed it, clearing the way for prosecutors in Bexar County to seek a new execution date for Ruiz.
Investigators said Ruiz collected $2,000 to kill Theresa Rodriguez at her home in San Antonio at the request of her husband, Michael, and a brother-in-law as part of a life insurance scheme.
Ruiz was convicted of being the triggerman in the plot. Michael Rodriguez also was convicted in the case — but he wound up on death row after becoming one of the notorious Texas Seven gang of inmates who escaped from a prison in December 2000 and killed a Dallas-area police officer. Rodriguez was executed in 2008.
In Ruiz's appeal, his attorneys argued that his trial lawyers and his original appeals lawyers failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence, like his long-term drug abuse and a troubled childhood, that could have convinced jurors to decide on a punishment other than death.
But in a 6-1 ruling with two judges not participating, the criminal appeals court said that claim had been "fully and completely vetted" by the federal courts over the past seven years. The court said the claims of poor legal help at Ruiz's trial had been "inspected, scrutinized, studied, probed, analyzed, reviewed and evaluated by the three main levels of the federal court system."
The court also said it had previously rejected the argument raised in the appeal that executing Ruiz more than two decades after his conviction amounted to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.
Ruiz came within an hour of lethal injection in 2007 before a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stopped his execution. In 2-1 ruling, the judges in the majority said they needed more time to review arguments of poor legal help in early stages of his appeals.
The case then was sent back to a federal district court, which denied the appeal. The 5th Circuit denied it again, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the appeal in 2014.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solar Advocates Ask Florida High Court to Invalidate Measure
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/10/12 21:15
|
Solar advocates are asking Florida's high court to invalidate Amendment 1, a ballot measure they argue is misleading, and throw out votes cast for it.
The legal challenge was filed Wednesday with the Florida Supreme Court.
It comes after a leading proponent of Amendment 1 was recorded saying that the measure was written to appear pro-solar, even though it could end up restricting solar growth in Florida by raising costs.
Solar advocates are asking the court to revisit a previous ruling which found that Amendment 1's language was not misleading.
Sarah Bascom, spokeswoman for a utility-funded group that supports the amendment, called the legal challenge "political grandstanding" and said the amendment will protect consumers.
Amendment 1 seeks to change the state constitution to say consumers shouldn't "subsidize" solar growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears case of officer immune from manslaughter charge
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/09/27 20:13
|
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Tuesday in a Texas case in which the state is trying to prosecute a white Texas officer who a judge earlier said was immune from prosecution in the shooting death of a black man.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing the case in New Orleans.
Charles Kleinert was an Austin police officer working with an FBI task force investigating bank robberies when he encountered Larry Jackson Jr. Court records say Jackson tried to enter a bank that was closed, saying he wanted to make a withdrawal. Kleinert was inside, and bank employees who talked to Jackson told Kleinert he lied about his identity.
Kleinert went out to investigate and after a short conversation, Jackson ran off. Kleinert gave chase.
When Kleinert caught up to Jackson, a struggle ensued and Jackson was shot in the back of the neck and died. Kleinert's team have argued that Kleinert hit Jackson twice with his hand while holding his gun, then Jackson turned, Kleinert fell back and his gun accidentally discharged.
Prosecutors have argued that Kleinert acted recklessly, that he used excessive force and suggested the gun was directly against Jackson's neck when it went off. A Texas grand jury indicted Kleinert for manslaughter in July 2013.
But before the case went to trial, a federal judge dismissed it. The judge cited a more than 100-year-old court ruling protecting federal officers from state prosecution if they were carrying out their duties in a reasonable and proper manner. The protection doesn't shield all acts by federal law enforcement, but it does create a different, and what many consider a more forgiving, standard for their conduct than state law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court to weigh appeal on Indiana's block on Syrian refugees
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/09/14 15:53
|
A federal appeals court in Chicago is set to hear arguments in Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's appeal of a ruling that blocked his order to bar state agencies from helping Syrian refugees resettle in Indiana.
The appeals court is considering the case Wednesday, about two months before voters decide if Pence will be the nation's next vice president.
After the November Paris attacks, Pence said he didn't believe the federal government was adequately screening refugees from war-torn Syria. In February, a federal judge found Pence's order discriminatory against refugees.
Pence administration attorneys say the directive is "narrowly tailored" in the interest of public safety. But the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana argues refugees are extensively vetted and the state's argument is "built on fear." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rejects Cosby's attempt to reseal testimony on affairs
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2016/08/14 21:12
|
A federal appeals court on Monday rejected Bill Cosby's effort to reseal his deposition testimony about extramarital affairs, prescription sedatives and payments to women, saying the documents are now a matter of public knowledge.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that the comedian's appeal was moot. "The contents of the documents are a matter of public knowledge, and we cannot pretend that we could change that fact by ordering them resealed," the court wrote in an opinion.
Cosby's attorneys hoped a ruling in their favor could help them keep the documents from being used in the criminal case against him in Pennsylvania and in the many lawsuits filed around the country by women who accuse him of sexual assault or defamation.
Cosby gave the testimony in 2005 as part of a lawsuit brought against him by Andrea Constand, a Temple University employee who said he drugged and molested her at his home. She later settled for an undisclosed sum, and sensitive documents in the file remained sealed.
In the nearly 1,000-page deposition, the married comic once known as "America's Dad" for his beloved portrayal of Dr. Cliff Huxtable on his top-ranked 1980s TV show, "The Cosby Show," admitted to several extramarital affairs and said he obtained quaaludes to give to women he hoped to seduce.
The documents were released last year on a request from The Associated Press. U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno found the public had a right to Cosby's testimony because of his role as a self-appointed "public moralist" and because he had denied accusations he drugged and molested women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
