[JURIST] A DC federal grand jury Tuesday indicted [text, PDF; DOJ press release] US Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) [official website] on seven counts of making false statements [18 USC s. 1001(a) text] relating to an alleged corruption scheme and for falsifying his Financial Disclosure Forms. Stevens allegedly accepted about $250,000 in gifts over an eight-year period from the founder of oil services and engineering company VECO Corp. [corporate website] and in exchange reportedly used his influence in Washington to improperly benefit the company and its employees. The indictment asserts that:

Stevens, while a sitting United States Senator, knowingly and willfully engaged in a scheme to conceal a material fact, that is, his continuing receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of things of value from a private corporation and its chief executive officer by, among other things, failing to report them, as was required, on Stevens' required yearly Financial Disclosure Forms.

[JURIST] A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] has upheld [opinion, PDF] seven out of 12 charges against two US border agents who were found guilty of unlawfully shooting an illegal immigrant smuggling drugs and then trying to cover up the incident. In 2006 Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean [advocacy website] were convicted on charges of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence, tampering with an official proceeding, and deprivation of civil rights. The trial court sentenced them to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively after it was found that they failed to report their shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug trafficker who had entered the United States illegally and was shot once while fleeing back across the US-Mexico border after border agents disrupted his marijuana delivery. In rejecting the defendants Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment [texts] arguments, among others, the court concluded Monday:

For the most part, the trial of this case was about credibility, and although the jury could have gone either way, it chose not to believe the defendants’ version of the crucial events of February 17. The trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error. The exclusion of evidence relating to the size of the marijuana load and Aldrete-Davila’s alleged involvement in drug-trafficking events of October 2005 did not violate the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to present a complete defense nor did it deny them a proper cross-examination of a witness against them. They were denied no right of due process for lack of notice that § 924(c) could be applied to police officers while performing law enforcement duties. Nor was the § 924(c) indictment defective. Moreover, the defendants were properly convicted of substantive crimes, not for violating Border Patrol policies. In instructing the jury, no reversible errors were committed and, finally, the evidence fully supports the jury verdict. We therefore affirm the convictions for counts 1 through 5 and counts 11 and 12.

[JURIST] Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim [BBC profile; JURIST news archive] released a medical report [PDF text and explanation] Tuesday that he said refuted sodomy allegations [JURIST report] made against him by a former aide. According to the report, the initial examining doctor at a private hospital could not find evidence of sexual assault, but advised the aide to undergo a second examination at a government hospital. Under Malaysian law, courts will only consider medical evidence of rape or sodomy if certified by a government doctor [Malaysiakini report]. Anwar responded [personal blog post] to the report:

I have willingly cooperated in the police investigations; careless and vindictive though it has turned out to be. But I have decided that nation is in a grave situation economically and socially and I can no longer be distracted by such nuisances. I am now determined to move ahead with the reform agenda, which the Malaysian people endorse in the last elections, and I do not intend to address this scurrilous accusations anymore [sic].

[JURIST] A lawyer for three Indonesian men sentenced to death for their role in the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings [BBC backgrounder] that killed 202 people said Monday that he would file a constitutional challenge to their method of execution. Mukhlas, Imam Samudra and Amrozi Nurhasyim [BBC profiles] will claim that death by firing squad amounts to "torture," as the condemned are often not killed by the first round of bullets, and insist that the method is contrary to Islamic law [VOA report]. The three men, all members of Southeast Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) [CFR backgrounder; JURIST news archive], requested they be executed by beheading [BBC report] rather than firing squad in a 2006 Supreme Court appeal. AP has more. VOA has additional coverage.

In July, the Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the third appeal [JURIST report] made by the three men. Their first appeal was rejected late last year, prompting an unusual second appeal, which was later withdrawn [JURIST reports]. In May, Indonesian police arrested [JURIST report] another JI member, Faiz Fauzan, in connection with the another set of Bali bombings [BBC report] in 2005. In March, an Indonesian judge handed down 15-year sentences [JURIST report] to two JI leaders, Zarkasih and Abu Dujana [BBC profiles], after convicting them on other terrorism charges.

[JURIST] Judges at London's High Court Monday rejected an appeal against the extradition of three Tunisian men arrested on terrorism charges who argued that their removal to Italy could ultimately lead to their torture. The three were arrested late last year in England after an Italian judge issued an European arrest warrants (EAWs) [EU backgrounder] for them. In May, a UK judge ordered their extradition [Reuters report]. Reiterating their earlier High Court claims before Monday's appeal ruling, the men argued that under Italy's Pisanu Law [text, in Italian], they could be extradited to Tunisia, where they could face torture. The High Court judges acknowledged that Italy's past use of the Law was "disturbing," but said that under a 2002 EU Council Framework Decision on EAWs [text], the country must ensure the men's Article 3 protections against torture of the European Convention on Human Rights [PDF text]. The men have all denied the charges, and they have 14 days to appeal the decision to the House of Lords. The Press Association has more. AFP has additional coverage.

Last month, Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] released a report [text; press release] accusing Tunisia of committing widespread human rights abuses under broad anti-terrorism legislation. AI also criticized the US, as well as European and other Arab countries, for turning over terror suspects to Tunisian authorities [JURIST report] despite allegations of torture and other abuses. In February, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the deportation [text] of a former Tunisian terrorism suspect, finding he would likely be subjected to torture [JURIST report] in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights if returned to Tunisia. In September 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report [text; press release] accusing Tunisian officials of mistreating two former Guantanamo detainees [JURIST report] after they were returned to the country.

[JURIST] The 192-member UN General Assembly Monday unanimously voted to approve [press release] South African judge Navanethem Pillay [ICC profile] as the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, replacing departing commissioner Louise Arbour [JURIST report]. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced lat Thursday that he was appointing [JURIST report] Pillay to the post. UN critics and rights groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website], have stressed the need for the new high commissioner to continue Arbour's aggressive stance on human rights issues [HRW press release]. Pillay is scheduled to begin her four-year term on September 1. Reuters has more. AFP has additional coverage.

Pillay, a former judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and a current appeals chamber judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official websites], began her legal career in 1967 when she became the first woman to open a law practice in the Natal province of South Africa. Initially known for her work defending anti-apartheid activists, she successfully fought to guarantee the legal representation rights of South African political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela [Nobel Prize profile]. In 1995, she became the first woman of Southeast Asian descent appointed to the South African Supreme Court [official website]. AP has more. The UN News Centre has additional coverage.

[JURIST] The human rights situation in China has continued to deteriorate as the start of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games draws closer, according to a report [PDF text; press release] released Tuesday by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website]. The report, which updated an April AI report [PDF text] detailing ongoing human rights abuses in the country, evaluated the Chinese government on its use of the death penalty, administrative detentions, the detention and abuse of rights activists, including journalists and lawyers, and Internet censorship. The report said that in almost all of these areas, Chinese human rights abuses have remained constant or have increased:

[O]n balance the Chinese authorities have so far failed to fulfil[l] their own commitments to improve human rights. In fact, the authorities have used the Olympic Games as pretext to continue, and in some respects, intensify existing policies and practices which have led to serious and widespread violations of human rights. Within the core areas monitored by Amnesty International, the only sign of significant reform is with regard to the application of the death penalty and the ability of foreign media to cover news stories in China. While these reforms are welcome, they have both been beset by structural weaknesses and a failure to make them fully operational in practice. In other areas, official policy in the run-up to the Games has actually led to a deterioration in China’s human rights situation.

[JURIST] The US Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] announced Monday that it has transferred three more Guantanamo detainees [press release], one each to Afghanistan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The unnamed individuals are among more than 65 Guantanamo [JURIST news archive] detainees government officials have declared eligible for transfer. About 265 detainees remain at the base.

The Bush administration has been facing growing pressure to close the Guantanamo military prison. Last August, President Bush expressed hope that the Guantanamo detention facility would eventually be shut down [JURIST report], but said that other countries had shown reluctance to accept detainees.

[JURIST] US President George W. Bush Monday approved the death sentence of US Army private Ronald A. Gray, marking the first time a president has approved a military execution since 1957. Gray was first tried by a civilian court for his connection to four murders and eight rapes in North Carolina in the mid-1980s. There he pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and five counts of rape, and the court sentenced him to life in prison. A court-martial panel then convicted [AP report] Gray in 1988 of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, as well as counts of rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) [text]. He was dishonorably discharged, demoted and sentenced to death, a military sentence that requires presidential approval under the UCMJ. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Services finally rejected Gray's appeal [opinion text] in 1999, and the US Supreme Court denied certiorari [government Supreme Court brief, PDF] in 2001. Following Bush's approval of the sentence, White House press secretary Dana Perino commented:

While approving a sentence of death for a member of our armed services is a serious and difficult decision for a commander-in-chief, the president believes the facts of this case leave no doubt that the sentence is just and warranted.

[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Thailand Monday agreed to hear [AP report] a new corruption case against ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and 47 others, including three current cabinet members. The case involves allegations of misconduct related to the national lottery system, and names Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee, Labor Minister Uraiwan Thienthong and Deputy Transport Minister Anurak Jureemas as defendants. The status of the serving ministers under Thai law is in dispute; at a meeting [Reuters report] Tuesday, the Cabinet asked the government's legal experts to look into the issue and make recommendations rather than suspend the ministers outright, as some experts say is required under the constitution. AFP has more.

Earlier this month, the Thai Attorney General's Office filed other corruption charges [JURIST report] against Thaksin relating to a 2003 resolution that reduced fees paid by mobile phone companies to state telecommunications agencies. A company then owned by Thaksin's family saw the greatest benefit from the new payment scheme, leading to claims that Thaksin misused his authority for personal gain. Thaksin, who was ousted in a military coup [JURIST report] in 2006, is currently the subject of 24 legal actions.

[JURIST] The US Justice Department Offices of Inspector General and Professional Responsibility [official websites] concluded in a report [PDF text] issued Monday that department aides illegally made hiring decisions based on consideration of applicants' political and ideological beliefs. In early 2007, officials began investigating allegations [JURIST report] that former DOJ aide Monica Goodling [JURIST news archive] and two other aides considered the political affiliations of candidates for career prosecutor positions in the Department, contrary to federal law [OSC backgrounder] and internal practices. The report observed:

It is not improper to consider political or ideological affiliations in making hiring decisions for political positions. However, both Department policy and federal law prohibit discrimination in hiring for career positions on the basis of political affiliations.

Our investigation found that Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, in violation of federal law and Department policy.

[JURIST] Lawyers representing Binyam Mohamed [Reprieve profile], the last British resident still detained at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive], argued at a Monday High Court hearing [JURIST report] in London that the UK Foreign Office should be compelled to turn over evidence necessary to his defense before a US military commission. The evidence sought allegedly shows that Mohamed was the victim of torture and extraordinary rendition [JURIST news archive]. On Friday, Mohamed's lawyer asked the Irish government [Irish Times report] to turn over information about CIA rendition flights [JURIST news archive] that allegedly landed in Ireland in 2002 and 2004 while transporting Mohamed. Sky News has more. IRNA has additional coverage.

Mohamed says he was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to US officials who later transferred him to Moroccan agents who tortured him; he was later transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2004. In December, in a letter [DOC text] sent by his lawyer to UK Foreign Secretary David Milliband, he asked the UK government [JURIST report] to ensure that photographic evidence of his alleged torture be preserved. For most of 2007, Binyam was one of five UK residents detained at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Three of those were released [press release; JURIST report] from US custody in December. A fourth British resident, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, a Saudi Arabian national, was to be returned there but his current status is unclear.

[JURIST] An eyewitness' ability to recall specific details of an incident decreases dramatically in high-stress situations, according to a new study [PDF text; press release] that could have long-ranging impact on law enforcement and legal procedures. The study, conducted by Tin Valentine and Jan Mesout of Goldsmiths [academic website], part of the University of London, measured participants' ability to recall details about an actor instructed to jump out at visitors as they moved through a "fun-house" maze. The study found that participants who reported being more stressed during the visit consistently failed to correctly identify specific details about the actor afterwards.

The study distinguished between "low stress" situations, which might actually produce a heightened awareness of one's surroundings, with "high stress" terror, which reduces one's recall. The researchers noted that the latter form of stress is more often the one experienced by witnesses to crimes. Evidence reform advocates are already critical of eyewitness testimony [NLADA materials] and some have predicted [advocacy blog] that the study could have major implications for criminal cases that rely on eyewitness testimony.