Despite increased international efforts, Somali pirates continue to be a concern in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. In late September, a court in the Somali state of Puntland sentenced a pirate to death [JURIST report] for murdering the skipper of cargo ship in June. Also last month, a Kenyan court convicted [JURIST report] seven Somali pirates and sentenced them to five years in prison. Earlier in September, a Kenyan court convicted [JURIST report] seven other Somali pirates, giving them the same five-year sentences. The maximum sentence under Kenyan law for piracy is life imprisonment, and the EU Naval Force Somalia (EU NAVFOR) [official website], a naval force that has been deployed to deal with the surge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, refuses to turn over suspects unless capital punishment is off the table. In July, a court in Seychelles convicted and sentenced [JURIST report] a group of Somali pirates to 10 years in prison following the attempted hijacking of Seychelles coastguard ship. In June, the UN announced the opening of a new high-security courtroom [JURIST report] in Kenya that will hear piracy cases. The announcement came after the UN announced $9.3 million in donations [JURIST report] to help fund piracy courts in Kenya and Seychelles.

First, the court overlooked the numerous provisions of the Act protecting manufacturers from liability, but it did not expressly preempt design defect claims. Second, the court misconstrued the word "unavoidable" in section 22(b)(1)'s Federal law defense. And third, the court adopted a policy that exposes children to unnecessary safety risks.

In Harrington v. Richter [oral arguments transcript, PDF; JURIST report], the court heard arguments on whether a defense counsel's reliance on cross-examination in lieu of forensic evidence violates the client's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Granting federal habeas corpus review, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] in an en banc rehearing that Richter's counsel "failed to undertake the most elementary task that a responsible defense attorney would perform" by not presenting forensic analysis of a blood pool found at the scene of a murder Richter is accused of committing. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court, the California Court of Appeals, and the US District Court for the Eastern District of California had all previously rejected the application. Counsel for the petitioner argued that "the Ninth Circuit failed to give the State court decision the proper deference—indeed, double deference—it was owed. Counsel for the respondent argued that a different verdict could have been reached if there had been forensic analysis of the blood pool.

In Premo v. Moore [oral arguments transcript, PDF], the court heard arguments on whether the standard established in Arizona v. Fulminante [opinion text]—that erroneous admission of a coerced confession at trial is not harmless—applies if a collateral challenge is based on a defense attorney's decision not to move to suppress a confession prior to a guilty or no contest plea and whether that is clearly established under federal law. The Ninth Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF] the district court's decision to deny Moore's writ of habeas corpus. Counsel for the petitioner argued:

The court of appeals held that Arizona v. Fulminante was the clearly established Federal law to control and govern the outcome of this case. This was an error, because this Court has never applied Fulminante's direct appeal harmless error standard, which places the burden of proof on the government, to a collateral ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where the burden of proof is on the inmate.

Besigye's trial resumed in June 2007 after a one-year delay [JURIST report]. In April 2007, Uganda's chief prosecutor Simon Byabakama Mugenyi told the court that files detailing the intelligence gathering efforts [JURIST report] against Besigye had been "misplaced." The existence of the PRA is disputed, and the Ugandan government has been accused of fabricating the group's existence to support its crackdown on political opponents. In March 2007, Ugandan judges went on strike [JURIST report] to protest an incident in which government security agents surrounded a courthouse, rearrested six opposition supporters who had been charged with treason but granted bail, and beat a defendant's lawyer unconscious. The incident also prompted lawyers to strike [JURIST report], and Museveni promised to implement more transparent procedures for making arrests [JURIST report].

In Bond v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether a criminal defendant, who has been convicted under a federal statute, has standing to challenge the conviction on grounds that the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment [text]. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that Bond lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. The appeals court added that claims that the statute is vague and overboard fall short and that Bond was appropriately punished for her offenses.

The court will also hear the case of Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to determine whether state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment [text] when they petitioned the government on matters of private concern. The Third Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that government employees can sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment. The ruling was in direct contradiction to decisions by all 10 other federal circuits and four state supreme courts.

In DePierre v. United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether the term "cocaine base" encompasses every form of cocaine that is classified chemically as a base, which would mean that the same 10-year mandatory minimum sentence applies to offenses involving 50 to 500 grams of raw coca leaves or of the paste derived from coca leaves, or whether the term "cocaine base" is limited to "crack" cocaine. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the statute intends for the term "cocaine base" to include all forms of cocaine base, including, but not limited to, crack cocaine.

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for actively inducing patent infringement under 35 USC § 271(b) [text] is "deliberate indifference of a known risk" to encourage an infringement. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that is the correct legal standard. The petitioners contend that this was in error, due to the court's previous finding that "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct" to encourage an infringement is the appropriate standard.

Finally, the court will also hear the case of Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The court will determine whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes and whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that Oneida Indian Nation is immune.

Online piracy has assumed increasing importance in the eyes of legislators across Europe, and many countries have considered legislation that would allow the suspension of Internet services in order to deter internet piracy. In April, the UK Parliament [official website] approved legislation [text, JURIST report] authorizing the suspension of Internet service for those who repeatedly download copyrighted material illegally. The act also received Royal Assent [text] and is now law. The Digital Economy Bill calls on internet service providers (ISPs) to block download sites, reduce a user's broadband speeds, and ultimately shut down a user's internet access in order to prevent piracy of copyrighted materials. Last October, the French Constitutional Court approved a similar bill after the legislation was given final approval by the French Parliament [JURIST reports] the previous month. Under the French law, the government can send notices to Internet service providers to terminate an individual's internet access for up to one year after a third violation of intellectual property laws for downloading or sharing movies and music.

This most recent lawsuit joins two others filed [JURIST report] earlier this year challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law. The bill, signed into law [JURIST report] by Brewer in April, has caused intense controversy. In May, a group of UN human rights experts indicated the measure may violate international standards [JURIST report] that are binding on the US. Mexican President Felipe Calderon [official website, in Spanish] has strongly criticized [JURIST report] the new law, claiming that it opens the door to intolerance and hatred. US President Barack Obama also criticized the law [JURIST report], and called for federal immigration reform. Under the law, it is designated a crime to be in the country illegally, and immigrants unable to verify their legal status could be arrested and jailed for six months and fined $2,500.

The inquests were delayed five years by the police investigation and a criminal trial of three other men suspected of being involved. The three others were later acquitted of involvement in the bombings, but two of them were found guilty and sentenced on lesser charges [JURIST reports]. Last April, lawyers for victims of the July 7 bombings argued [JURIST report] in the Royal Courts of Justice that UK authorities possessed information that could have helped them prevent the attacks. The theory for the case is built on intelligence that British security service MI5 [official website] and the London police had uncovered about the four suicide bombers prior to the attacks. In 2008, The UK Court of Appeal rejected an appeal [JURIST report] by four men convicted for plotting a failed similar bombing [JURIST news archive] supposed to occur two weeks afterward on July 21, 2005.