 |
|

Legal news from Tuesday, August 1, 2006 |
 |
|


Federal appeals court allows prosecutors to review NYT phone records in leak probe
Joe Shaulis on August 1, 2006 4:11 PM ET

[JURIST] Federal prosecutors may review two New York Times reporters' phone records while trying to determine who leaked information about a terrorism investigation, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Tuesday. A three-judge panel held [opinion text, PDF] that "on the present facts," neither common-law privilege nor the First Amendment protected the Times from disclosing the subpoenaed records. "We see no danger to a free press in so holding," Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter [official profile] wrote in the majority opinion. Winter continued: Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes/searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential, or even common, journalism. Where such reporting involves the uncovering of government corruption or misconduct in the use of investigative powers, courts can easily find appropriate means of protecting the journalists involved and their sources. Circuit Judge Robert Sack [official profile] dissented [PDF text], noting that he agreed with much of the majority opinion but arguing that the case should have gone to trial for prosecutors to justify their need for the phone records. The Second Circuit vacated a February 2005 district court decision [PDF text; JURIST report] granting summary judgment to the Times.
US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald [official profile] in Chicago requested the phone records after the Times reported in late 2001 that the federal government was about to raid the offices of two Islamic charities with suspected links to terrorism and freeze their assets. After the Times refused to disclose the records, Fitzgerald threatened to subpoena the phone company, leading the Times to file a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment blocking Fitzgerald from making that move. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Military hearings begin for US soldiers charged with murdering Iraq detainees
Jaime Jansen on August 1, 2006 2:22 PM ET

[JURIST] A US military court on Tuesday began Article 32 [JAG backgrounder; USMJ text] hearings, similar to civil grand jury proceedings, to determine whether four Army soldiers charged [JURIST report] with premeditated murder of Iraqi detainees will face courts-martial. The four men from the Third Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division [GlobalSecurity backgrounder] - Sergeant Raymond Girouard, Specialist William Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey Clagett and Specialist Juston Graber - are accused of deliberately murdering three Iraqi detainees and then covering up the murders during a May 9 raid on an alleged insurgent training camp near Tikrit.
Last week, the New York Times reported that another member of the squad in question, Sgt. Lemuel Lemus, gave a sworn statement depicting the events of the alleged murder [JURIST report]. The soldiers originally agreed that the captured detainees had broken free during a morning raid, and were shot while trying to escape and attack the squad. Lemus' account, however, depicts purposeful murder and even alleges that Squad Leader Girouard cut Hunsaker to enhance the legitimacy of their account. Lawyers for Clagett and Hunsaker dispute Lemus' account, and claim that Colonel Michael Steele, the well-known brigade commander that led a botched 1993 mission in Somalia depicted in the book and movie Black Hawk Down [Wikipedia backgrounder], ordered the soldiers to kill all military-age men prior to the raid. Steele has indicated that he will refuse to testify at the Article 32 hearing. Reuters has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Russia arbitration judge declares Yukos bankrupt
Joe Shaulis on August 1, 2006 1:40 PM ET

[JURIST] A Russian arbitration court judge declared oil company Yukos [corporate website; JURIST news archive; corporate website; Wikipedia backgrounder] bankrupt Tuesday and said the company may be liquidated to pay creditors. The decision, which had been expected, confirms a vote taken by Yukos' creditors last week. A Yukos lawyer described Tuesday's decision as a "death sentence" for the company, once the primary producer of oil in Russia [JURIST news archive]. Yukos' bankruptcy supervisor, Eduard Rebgun, will be paid 1.8 million rubles ($67,000 US) a month to liquidate the company.
To pay off Yukos' back taxes, the company's largest production unit was sold [JURIST report] in 2004 to a state-controlled oil group. That conglomerate, OAO Rosneft [corporate profile, English version], now ranks as one of Yukos' largest creditors, along with the Federal Tax Service. Yukos' downfall began after its founder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky [JURIST news archive], was convicted of tax evasion [JURIST report] in May 2005 - a prosecution that critics contend was politically motivated, despite denials by Russian President Vladimir Putin [official website; BBC profile]. AP has more. MosNews has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

UK appeals court upholds ruling quashing control orders for terror suspects
Jaime Jansen on August 1, 2006 1:30 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Court of Appeal ruled [text] Tuesday that six terror suspects cannot be detained without charge under so-called control orders [BBC backgrounder], which are used when there is not enough evidence to prosecute. UK Home Secretary John Reid [official profile] had appealed a High Court ruling [JURIST reports], arguing that it had contained "misunderstandings and errors." The High Court ruled [text] in June that the orders authorizing the electronic monitoring or house arrest of terror suspects based on insufficient evidence to try them violate the European Convention on Human Rights [text, PDF], but a government lawyer told the Court of Appeal that the High Court misapplied the language of the convention and that Parliament tailored the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 [text], which authorizes the orders, to pass muster under the convention. Control orders allow the government to impose house arrest and electronic surveillance on suspects and to forbid them from using mobile phones and the Internet. Reid said he would change the control orders, but will also appeal Tuesday's ruling. BBC News has more.
The Court of Appeal also handed down a second judgment [text] in a related case Tuesday, ruling that a lower court judge "was in error in holding that the provisions for review by the court of the making of a non-derogating control order by the Secretary of State do not comply with the requirements of [ECHR] Article 6." The second case involves a man identified only as "MB," who the British government alleges intended to go to Iraq to fight coalition forces. Justice Sullivan, the same High Court judge who ruled in the above case, in April held that control orders, as applied to MB, violated his right to a fair trial [ruling; JURIST report] under the Human Rights Act [text], which incorporates ECHR rights into British law, and were an "affront to justice."


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US Army general who ran Gitmo, oversaw Iraq detentions resigns with honors
Jaime Jansen on August 1, 2006 11:15 AM ET

[JURIST] US Army Major General Geoffrey Miller [Wikipedia profile], the former commander of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], retired [press release] from the Army Monday with honors. Miller ran Guantanamo from 2002 to 2004, and served as a consultant at the Abu Ghraib prison [JURIST news archive] in Iraq during 2003, where he has is alleged to have recommended the use of dogs as a harsh detainee interrogation tactic. Rights groups have criticized Miller's receipt of the Distinguished Service Medal, calling the honor another example of military officials failing to hold accountable those responsible for abusive conditions.
Miller's retirement was postponed until after the court-martial of US Army Sergeant Santos Cardona, who was convicted of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib when he used unmuzzled dogs during interrogations [JURIST reports]. In testimony during Cardona's court-martial, Miller denied recommending the use of dogs during interrogations [JURIST report]. Although Miller will not face disciplinary action for the allegations against him, he could be called back to active duty to face a court-martial, though military officials say the move will not likely happen. Pentagon officials last year refused to reprimand Miller [JURIST report] as recommended by two generals investigating abuse at Guantanamo Bay. Reuters has more. The Los Angeles Times has additional coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Libby lawyers seek to use memory expert in CIA leak trial
Jaime Jansen on August 1, 2006 10:21 AM ET

[JURIST] Attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby [defense profile; JURIST news archive], the former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, on Monday asked US District Judge Reggie Walton to allow expert testimony from a memory specialist at Libby's upcoming trial relating to his role in the CIA leak case [JURIST news archive]. In a court filing, Libby's attorneys said that testimony about how human memory works and why it fails will help a jury consider whether Libby lied to federal investigators about his knowledge of the CIA leak scandal, which revealed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby's attorneys will argue that Libby became confused during the investigation because several government witnesses misremembered facts, Libby was more focused on issues he considered more important at the time, and he did not intentionally misrepresent his knowledge of the leak. If allowed, Dr. Robert A. Bjork, the chairman of the Department of Psychology at UCLA, will likely testify that Libby could have easily confused minor details of conversations about Plame.
Libby has pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to obstruction of justice and perjury charges [PDF indictment; JURIST report] in connection with the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. NBC News has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Pinochet questioned by Chile judge in ex-army chief assassination probe
Jaime Jansen on August 1, 2006 9:02 AM ET

[JURIST] Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet [JURIST news archive] was questioned Monday by Judge Alejandro Solis about the assassination of General Carlos Prats [official profile, in Spanish; Wikipedia profile] shortly after Pinochet came to power following a 1973 coup [BBC backgrounder]. Prats, the army chief before Pinochet, opposed the coup. Solis said Pinochet answered all the questions and that there were no problems during the meeting. Pinochet's lawyer added that Pinochet answered the questions to the best of his ability, even in failing health.
Pinochet has denied involvement in the Prats assassination. An agent from Pinochet's security services was convicted [BBC report] in 2000 of direct participation in the assassination, and several others have been indicted. Last year, the Chile Supreme Court [official website] reinstated immunity for Pinochet in the Prats case, after he appealed a lower court ruling [JURIST reports] stripping Pinochet of immunity. Pinochet, however, currently faces other human rights and tax evasion charges [JURIST reports] despite efforts to avoid prosecution due to his failing health. AP has more. From Santiago, La Nacion has local coverage.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|