Legal Research Blog

 

Rosenberg Testimony May Be Released, 68 Years On

This week federal prosecutors filed papers granting the release of the grand jury testimony of 35 out of 45 witnesses who spoke during the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The secretive trial, ending in the execution of the couple for high treason, took place from 1950-1951. The Rosenbergs, who had family ties to the classified production of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos National Laboratory, were convicted of providing nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, but controversy and disbelief swirls around the decision to this day. Up until the end, the couple insisted on their innocence.

The testimony of ten of the trial’s witnesses, who are still living or have not agreed to its publication, will not be approved for release. While the government has given the go-ahead, a July 22nd hearing will finalize the decision.

Source: Yahoo News

Breaking News: Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban

11:16 A.M.The Supreme Court has upheld the right to individual gun ownership in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290).

11:26 A.M. Download the opinion here (PDF Link)

11:31 A.M. Here are some selected quotes from the majority (via SCOTUS blog) from the slip opinion:

“Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

For the only other case that tackles the scope of the Second Amendment, see United States v. Miller (on our sister site, The Public Library of Law). … the case is from 1939.

Good article on the WSJ Law Blog about why the ruling won’t make much difference in DC any time soon (upshot: even if it’s legal to possess a handgun, it’s not legal to carry one across state lines, and there are no stores authorized or zoned to sell handguns in DC — at least for now).

What are your thoughts on this ruling? Let us know in the comments!

Sources: Reuters, WSJ Law Blog

Justices Follow in Law Lords Footsteps

In some what of a follow up to “Law Lords Come to the Defense of Defendants”, the Supreme Court made a similar decision to that of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary this week by ruling that a defendant has the right to question their accuser no matter what the reason for the witness’ absence. In the case of Giles v. California, a statement from Dwayne Giles girlfriend, whose murder he confessed to, was used as evidence of his intent to kill. While he invoked his right to confront all witnesses through the 6th amendment, the Supreme Court of California ruled that this right was no longer valid considering he was the cause of her absence. After an appeal to the high court and arguments heard in April, the justices have granted Giles with a new trial, this time only admitting testimony from witnesses who are present. Although Giles already confessed to the murder, without the testimony from his girlfriend it would be difficult to convict him of murder in the first degree. Just as in the UK, many are concerned that this decision will keep victims from coming forward in the future with information that would be helpful in convicting dangerous criminals.

Source: Yahoo!News

Landmark Case Provides Even More Historical Counsel

The United States Supreme Court Justices will read a brief from one of the youngest lawyers ever to file before the high court. A recent graduate from Catholic University’s School of Law, Elizabeth Getman, at the ripe old age of 27, is already serving as co-counsel to Andrew Herman of the Bland Law Group in DC as he argues the case of Jack Davis v. Federal Election Commission. The case, which began in 2006 after Davis filed suit against the FEC based on grievances with the Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002, immediately sparked Getman’s attention. Going into her third and final year at the Columbus School of Law, Getman used this case to formulate her thesis topic. As Davis challenged the so-called “Millionaires’ Amendment” on the grounds that it violated his rights to free speech and equal protection under the First and Fifth Amendments respectively, Getman made contact with Herman, the case’s lead counsel. After months of sharing information and ideas, followed by feelings of despair when Davis’ claim was rejected by the District Court in Washington, DC, Herman wanted Getman’s advice. Her experience with the case proved valuable enough that Herman took the young associate on as co-counsel before he made his own first appearance before the court and the rest is history, or it will be as soon as the case is heard later this month. Herman and Getman will attempt to prove that loosening campaign finance rules for the opponent of a self-financed candidate leads to an unfair advantage and a violation of constitutional rights.

Source: RollCall.com

Law Lords Come to the Defense of Defendants

The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, otherwise known as the Law Lords, came to the conclusion last week that anonymous testimonies can no longer be accepted in the courts. The judicial appeals branch of the House of Lords is of the opinion that any witness who will not publicly identify themselves has nothing relevant to share on account of the inability to question their motives for providing testimony. The Law Lords seek justice for defendants by allowing them to investigate and question their accusers prior to testimony, ensuring that anyone who testifies against them is a legitimate source of information. Some members of Parliament and other proponents of witness protection are concerned about the effect this will have on decreasing criminal action and gangs that have been on the rise in the UK.

Prior to last week’s ruling, remaining anonymous served as an incentive to those who were hesitant to testify because of connections with the accused. By concealing identities, the UK had been successful in obtaining more witnesses and convicting more criminals. With the new ruling in effect, criminals incarcerated by way of anonymous witnesses and those still on trial will essentially be given a second chance. Cases being heard presently are to be considered a mistrial and the proceedings will have to begin again sometime in the near future, this time around with the accusers in plain view of the defendant. Only those considered to be “vulnerable” can remain anonymous but this is limited mainly to children.

The Law Lords are welcoming legislation that will make changes to specify who can and cannot be protected much like the Witness Protection Program created by the US in the 1970s. The Witness Protection Program has improved the ability to stop organized crime by protecting sources who feel their lives would be in danger by providing information. The UK will be determining in the days that follow whether they would benefit from a program similar to WITSEC to keep rising gang violence to a minimum.

Source: Times Online
Page 170 of 215« First...140150160«168169170171172»180190200...Last »