We have not previously held that the constitutional requirement of notice inside the statute of limitations period must be given at any particular point following the return of an indictment. ... Indeed, our long-standing rules of criminal procedure counsel otherwise, and we have never perceived any conflict with art. 12. ... Moreover, while we have concluded that generic John Doe indictments are not permitted by art. 12, the Legislature has expressly vested in the Commonwealth the authority to indict by "a fictitious name or by any other practicable description." ... Such authority, we have said, "is salutary, to the end that, in so far as art. 12 of the [Massachusetts Declaration of Rights] permits, one who ought to be indicted is prevented from hampering the grand jury in the performance of their duty by screening his name and other identifying characteristics." ... The Commonwealth routinely perfects its constitutionally required notice to the defendant, as required by art. 12, after the issuance date of indictment. It logically follows that where the Commonwealth secures an otherwise valid and timely indictment, but inserts the defendant's proper name in the record outside the relevant limitation period, there is no constitutional or statutory infirmity.

In January, the Supreme Court of California also upheld [JURIST report] the use of "John Doe" arrest warrants based on DNA profiles. In May, a federal court upheld the constitutionality [JURIST report] of mandatory DNA collection for all persons arrested or detained under federal authority. Judge Gregory Hollows of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California [official website] found that although the collection of DNA from those arrested on federal felony, sexual abuse, or violent crime charges does constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, a person arrested based on probable cause "has a diminished expectation of privacy in his own identity." Federal agencies began collecting DNA samples [JURIST report] in 2008, although they had been authorized to do so since 2006.

There are many dissidents in China, and their opinions differ on many points. The severe punishment imposed on Liu made him more than a central spokesman for human rights. Practically overnight, he became the very symbol, both in China and internationally, of the struggle for such rights in China. ... China's own constitution upholds fundamental human rights. Article 35 of the country's constitution thus lays down that "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." Article 41 begins by stating that citizens "have the right to criticise and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary." Liu has exercised his civil rights. He has done nothing wrong. He must therefore be released.

The Nobel committee announced Xiaobo as the recipient of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize [JURIST report] in October. Liu has been one of China's most prominent dissidents. He spent two years in prison following the Tiananmen Square [BBC backgrounder] uprising, has long challenged China's one-party rule and co-authored Charter 08 [text], a petition calling for political reforms in the country. He is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence in China for inciting subversion. US President Barack Obama, the 2009 award recipient, praised the Nobel Committee's decision and called on China to release Liu. Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs [official website, in Chinese] spokesperson Jiang Yu denounced the decision [press release, in Chinese], calling it "contrary to the purpose of the Nobel Prize." Chinese authorities have censored the announcement, blocking internet searches and international broadcasts about it and even turning off phones of people who text messaged the news.

Companies that are cutting off their services to Wikileaks ... are doing the right thing as good corporate citizens and deserve the support of the American people. The Wikileaks data dump has jeopardized U.S. national interests and the lives of intelligence sources around the world. This is no time for business as usual. While corporate entities make decisions based on their obligations to their shareholders, sometimes full consideration of those obligations requires them to act as responsible citizens. We offer our admiration and support to those companies exhibiting courage and patriotism as they face down intimidation from hackers sympathetic to Wikileaks' philosophy of irresponsible information dumps for the sake of damaging global relationships.

Shortly after WikiLeaks' release of the classified documents, US Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Defense (DOD) were conducting a criminal investigation [JURIST report] of WikiLeaks for the release. Holder condemned WikiLeaks' recent release of government cables, saying that it threatens US national security, specifically by risking the safety of those serving the country and straining important diplomatic relationships. Holder said during a press conference, that "there is an active ongoing criminal investigation that [the DOJ] is conducting with the Department of Defense." He added, "there is a basis to believe crimes have been committed, and we are in the process of investigating those crimes." The day before, the Obama administration issued a statement [press release] through Press Secretary Robert Gibbs condemning the releases as "reckless and dangerous." Holder did not say when he expected to announce the investigation's results.

Several African countries that are state parties to the ICC's Rome Statute [materials] have come under fire for allowing al-Bashir to attend events in their countries without arrest. Last week, the ICC asked the Central African Republic to take steps to arrest al-Bashir and transfer him to the court if he should enter the country for its independence celebrations. In August, Kenya welcomed al-Bashir to a celebration for the country's adoption of a new constitution [JURIST report]. The ICC reported Kenya [JURIST report] to the UN Security Council and the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute as a result of the country's failure to arrest al-Bashir. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan [official profile; JURIST news archive] urged Kenya to reaffirm its commitment to the ICC [JURIST report]. The ICC also reported Chad [decision, PDF] for failing to arrest al-Bashir when he visited the country in July.

Last July, BOA announced that it reached a settlement [JURIST report] with Parmalat in litigation stemming from its 2003 collapse. Under the terms of the settlement, BOA will pay Pamalat USD $100 million, which includes both cash and non-cash components. The settlement resolves a $10 million lawsuit filed by Parmalat against BOA in 2004 and a counterclaim [JURIST reports] filed by BOA, alleging the company engaged in fraud and is maliciously suing the bank to shift blame. The two companies filed a joint motion to stay proceedings [text, PDF], and further details of the settlement will become available once it has been filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York [official website]. In December 2008, an Italian court in Milan in a separate case concerning stock market manipulation sentenced [JURIST report] Tanzi to 10 years in prison for his role in the company's collapse. Tanzi was the first executive to be sentenced in connection with the 14 billion euro fraud scheme in 2003 that bankrupted the company. He was convicted of fraudulent bankruptcy and criminal association for allegedly concealing the company's debt. Tanzi was indicted [JURIST report] along with approximately 20 other executives in July 2007. Parmalat filed for insolvency in December 2003 after discovering accounting discrepancies totaling nearly $5 billion in debt.

In September, the Paris city council voted to accept a deal in which Chirac will pay the city USD $741,000 in compensation for money he allegedly paid to supporters for whom he created false jobs. In exchange for the compensation, the city agreed to drop out of a corruption suit [JURIST report] against Chirac. Chirac said the payment was not an admission of guilt. Last December, a French judge placed Chirac under preliminary investigation [JURIST report]. Chirac was ordered to stand trial [JURIST report] on related charges of embezzlement and misuse of public funds last October. The charges were originally filed in 2007 [JURIST report] after Chirac's presidency ended and he no longer had judicial immunity.

The Obama administration has been pushing Congress to repeal DADT as courts have also been weighing in on the issue. Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) [official website] heard conflicting testimony [JURIST report] from top military leaders on the services' readiness to repeal DADT. The hearing was held to review a Department of Defense (DOD) [official website] report [text, PDF; JURIST report], released earlier that week, which concluded that repealing DADT would only minimally effect military effectiveness, soldier retention and family readiness. Last month, US Air Force Major Margaret Witt, who was discharged under DADT, became the first openly gay person to serve in the US military after the Obama administration did not pursue a stay of a previous federal court decision ordering her reinstatement [JURIST reports]. Also in November, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on the 112th Congress to repeal DADT [JURIST report]. Gates issued a memorandum in October limiting the authority to discharge openly gay service members [JURIST report] to five senior DOD officials. The policy was struck down by a federal court in September, but an appeals court has since stayed that ruling [JURIST reports]. Since the enactment of DADT in 1993, approximately 13,000 servicemen and women have been discharged from the armed forces as a result of the policy.