 |
|

Legal news from Wednesday, August 30, 2006 |
 |
|


Marines accused in Hamdania killing face preliminary hearings
Alexis Unkovic on August 30, 2006 7:53 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Marine Corps [official website] Wednesday held separate hearings preliminary to possible court-martial at Camp Pendleton [official website], California, for two of the eight American soldiers, including seven Marines and one Navy corpsman, charged [JURIST report] with the April 26 murder and kidnapping of an Iraqi man in the town of Hamdania. The eight men allegedly dragged the man out of his home, shot him, and then placed an AK-47 rifle and a shovel near his body to make him look like he was burying a roadside bomb. As military prosecutors sought to build a case against the two Marines, Cpl. Marshall Magincalda and Pfc. John Jodka, one defense attorney denounced the pretrial hearing as "a rubber stamping process" and both defense attorneys said they doubt their clients will be able to receive a fair trial. Reuters has more.
So-called Article 32 [JAG backgrounder; USMJ text] proceedings held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice resemble civil grand jury proceedings. If convicted, the soldiers could receive the death penalty.


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

|

Japan court rejects World War II sex slaves lawsuit
Alexis Unkovic on August 30, 2006 7:12 PM ET

[JURIST] A district court in Tokyo Wednesday dismissed an action filed on behalf of eight Chinese women who claim they were forced to act as sex slaves, or "comfort women" [SFCU backgrounder; JURIST report], for Japanese soldiers during World War II. The plaintiffs, teenagers during the war, sought both monetary compensation and an apology from the Japanese government, and their lawyers said they plan to appeal the district court's ruling. The Japanese courts have dismissed most similar claims filed by other women seeking damages, though two cases are still pending in Japan's Supreme Court. Reuters has more. The Japan Times has local coverage.
In June 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] rejected [JURIST report] a similar lawsuit [PDF text] filed against the Japanese government by 15 women from the Philippines, Taiwan, China, and South Korea, who claimed Japanese soldiers had held them as sex slaves during World War II.


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

|

Pinochet judge removed from tax evasion case for alleged bias
Jaime Jansen on August 30, 2006 1:40 PM ET

[JURIST] The Santiago Court of Appeals [Chilean judiciary website, in Spanish] has temporarily removed Judge Carlos Cerda from presiding over a probe into the finances of former Chile dictator Augusto Pinochet [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], after hearing arguments that Cerda has a "personal bias" against Pinochet. Pinochet's lawyer had argued that Cerda demonstrated his bias towards Pinochet by voting against Pinochet in a previous tax evasion case [JURIST report]. Tuesday's decision to remove Cerda effectively halts the trial temporarily because a replacement judge will have to spend a significant amount of time reviewing prior court documents accumulated by Cerda. The Santiago court may choose to reinstate Cerda if it decides the bias accusations are not true. While Pinochet and his family claim that Pinochet's estimated $28 million came from savings, investments and donations, prosecutors argue that Pinochet took bribes from arms sales.
In the previous tax evasion case [JURIST report], Cerda issued arrest warrants for Pinochet, his wife, four of his children, daughter-in-law, former attorney and secretary following the release of indictments that all filed false tax returns [JURIST report]. Pinochet also faces multiple human rights charges [JURIST report] stemming from his 1973-1990 rule. AP has more.


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

|

Federal appeals court upholds EPA pesticide rule despite treaty
Joshua Pantesco on August 30, 2006 9:13 AM ET

[JURIST] A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld [opinion, PDF] a pesticide rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website], saying that the regulation does not violate the Clean Air Act [EPA materials] even though it may conflict with an international environmental treaty signed by the US. In December 2004, the EPA issued a rule [PDF text] identifying the once-popular pesticide methyl bromide [EPA backgrounder] as falling under the "critical use" exemption from the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer [PDF text; JURIST report], an environmental treaty signed by the US that phases out the use of methyl bromide by 2005. The National Resources Defense Council [advocacy website] sued, arguing that the "EPA has permitted too much new production and consumption of methyl bromide, which will result in more emissions, which will increase ozone depletion, which will adversely affect the health of NRDC's members," and that the EPA rule is in direct conflict with the Montreal Protocol. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled [PDF text] that the EPA was not bound by "postratification side agreements" reached at the Montreal Protocol because these agreements "are not 'law' within the meaning of the Clean Air Act and are not enforceable in federal court."
Chemical manufacturers hailed the decision as beneficial to farmers who are struggling to phase out use of the pesticide. Reuters has more.


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

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