In Blagojevich's first trial, the jury deliberated for 14 days after the 11-week trial but was unable to reach a consensus on all but one of the charges. According to reports, there was a lone holdout [Chicago Tribune report] on the convictions regarding the sale of Obama's Senate seat. The female juror allegedly stated that due to the lack of a "smoking gun" she was unable to convict Blagojevich of the crimes. Last September, lawyers for Blagojevich asked the judge to throw out the sole conviction [JURIST report], stating that the government failed to meet its required burden of proof and that cross-examinations by the defense were plagued by "obstructionist" objections [Chicago Tribune report], which the court continuously sustained. In January 2009, the Illinois State Senate voted unanimously [JURIST report] to convict Blagojevich of abuse of power and remove him from office. Blagojevich and his former chief of staff John Harris were initially arrested [JURIST report] in December 2008.

The defendant was found delinquent by the US District Court for the District of Montana in 2005 after pleading "true" to engaging in sex acts with a minor under 12, and was later required to register as a sex offender under SORNA. On appeal, the defendant challenged this registration on ex post facto grounds in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion text] in favor of the defendant, finding an ex post facto violation.

Hu was awarded the Sakharov Prize [press release] in October 2008 by the European Parliament [official website], for his fight for democracy. Hu has become prominently known as an advocate for HIV/AIDS awareness and a defender of religious freedom and human rights in China. China has been criticized for an increase in political arrests [press release; JURIST report] leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, including the trial of Hu and the conviction [JURIST reports] of Yang Chunlin [AI profile] for the same "inciting subversion of state power" crime [PRC Criminal Law article 105, PDF] with which activist Liu Xiaobo was charged [JURIST report] in June 2009.

Recall that respondent's claim of jurisdiction centers on three facts: The distributor agreed to sell J. McIntyre's machines in the United States; J. McIntyre officials attended trade shows in several States but not in New Jersey; and up to four machines ended up in New Jersey. The British manufacturer had no office in New Jersey; it neither paid taxes nor owned property there; and it neither advertised in, nor sent any employees to, the State. Indeed, after discovery the trial court found that the defendant does not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the machine in question ending up in this state. These facts may reveal an intent to serve the U.S. market, but they do not show that J. McIntyre purposefully availed itself of the New Jersey market.

The Supreme Court also decided another personal jurisdiction issueMonday . The court ruled [opinion, PDF] unanimously in Goodyear v. Brown [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that foreign subsidiaries of the American corporation Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company [corporate website] are subject to neither specific nor general personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. In that case, two North Carolina teenagers were killed in a bus accident in France when a tire manufactured in Turkey malfunctioned. Opposite McIntyre, in that case Justice Ginsburgh wrote the majority opinion holding that North Carolina lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiaries, because the cause of action did not arise out of or relate to any contacts between the suit and the forum state. Further, the court held there was no general personal jurisdiction because there was no "continuous and systematic" affiliation with North Carolina.

International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile] officially requested permission [JURIST report] from ICC judges last week to begin an investigation into the Ivory Coast after determining that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in the post-election violence. The Ivory Coast announced earlier this month it would establish its own commission [JURIST report] to investigate alleged crimes committed as a result of the disputed presidential elections. This investigation may take up to two years [Reuters report]. Also, an official for the UN's International Commission of Inquiry called for an investigation [JURIST report] into current Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara [BBC profile] and his forces' continuing attacks against supporters of Gbagbo earlier this month. In April, Human Rights Watch [advocacy website] urged Ouattara to conduct an investigation [JURIST report] into alleged atrocities carried out by his forces in its attempts to secure the presidency. According to the report, the pro-Ouattara forces, known as the Republican Forces of the Ivory Coast, killed more than 100 civilians, raped at least 20 supporters of Gbagbo and burned at least 10 villages in March. Also in April, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [official website] reported the deaths of at least 800 civilians [JURIST report] in the Ivory Coast town of Duekoue as a result of intercommunal violence.

The First Amendment's core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate. Nothing in Arizona's anti-corruption statute, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, violates this constitutional protection. To the contrary, the Act promotes the values underlying both the First Amendment and our entire Constitution by enhancing the "opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people."

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments [JURIST report] in the case in March. Counsel for the respondent argued that "public funding of elections results in more speech and more electoral competition" and furthers a governmental interest of combating "real and apparent corruption in politics." Further, that public funding combats corruption by freeing candidates from the "need to accept potentially corrupting private contributions," and allows for more candidates to run, "more political speech, and more electoral competition." Arizona's matching funds system both promoted speech and encouraged candidates to run against incumbents. The government argued, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondents that the matching funds provision "provides a formula for giving the publicly funded candidate as much money as the privately funded candidate." The government agreed that public financing facilitated speech and allowed candidates to run on the same footing.

A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the "continuous and systematic" affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation's contacts with the State.

The respondents had argued in their merits brief [text, PDF] that refusing to find jurisdiction over foreign subsidiaries of US corporations would encourage outsourcing to avoid litigation in the US. The petitioners argued [merits brief, PDF] that a finding of personal jurisdiction would invite forum shopping and deter interstate and foreign commerce. The Supreme Court did not address either of these arguments in its opinion.

California’s legislation straddles the fence between (1) addressing a serious social problem and (2) helping concerned parents control their children. Both ends are legitimate, but when they affect First Amendment rights they must be pursued by means that are neither seriously underinclusive nor seriously overinclusive. As a means of protecting children from portrayals of violence, the legislation is seriously underinclusive, not only because it excludes portrayals other than video games, but also because it permits a parental or avuncular veto. And as a means of assisting concerned parents it is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harm-less pastime. And the overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other. Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year after the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down the ban [JURIST reports] as unconstitutional. The bill, originally signed into law by then-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in October 2005, prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to minors under the age of 17, and required retailers to label violent games. In December 2005, US District Court Judge Ronald Whyte issued a temporary injunction [JURIST report] against the enforcement of the law after the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) [trade websites] filed a lawsuit [JURIST report]. Judges have struck down similar laws as unconstitutional in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota and Louisiana [JURIST reports].

In United States v. Jones [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether the warrantless use of a global positioning systems (GPS) tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment [text] and whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent. The federal government sought Supreme Court review [JURIST report] after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] last year that prolonged use of GPS to monitor suspects' vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In National Meat Association v. Harris [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether a California law requiring slaughterhouses to "immediately euthanize" any nonambulatory animal on its premises is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) [text]. The provisions of the California law were considered and expressly rejected by federal regulators because they eliminate certain federally required ante-mortem inspection of possibly diseased animals. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the California law was not preempted. The questions before the court are (1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a "presumption against preemption" requires a "narrow interpretation" of the FMIA's express preemption provision, in conflict with the court's decision in Jones v. Rath Packing Co. [opinion text] that the provision must be given "a broad meaning"?; (2) Where federal food safety and humane handling regulations specify that animals (here, swine) which are or become nonambulatory on federally-inspected premises are to be separated and held for observation and further disease inspection, did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a state criminal law which requires that such animals not be held for observation and disease inspection, but instead be immediately euthanized, was not preempted by the FMIA?; and (3) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding more generally that a state criminal law which states that no slaughterhouse may buy, sell, receive, process, butcher, or hold a nonambulatory animal is not a preempted attempt to regulate the "premises, facilities, [or] operations" of federally-regulated slaughterhouses.

In Messerschmidt v. Millender [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity [Cornell LII backgrounder] where they execute search warrants later determined invalid. The Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the officers in this case were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has held in United States v. Leon and Malley v. Briggs [opinions text] that officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable." The questions before the court are (1) Under these standards, are officers entitled to qualified immunity where they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her, and a district attorney approved the application, no factually on-point case law prohibited the search, and the alleged overbreadth in the warrant did not expand the scope of the search; and (2) Should the Malley/Leon standards be reconsidered or clarified in light of lower courts' inability to apply them in accordance with their purpose of deterring police misconduct, resulting in imposition of liability on officers for good faith conduct and improper exclusion of evidence in criminal cases?

In Martel v. Clair [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. The district court denied respondent Kenneth Clair's petition for habeas corpus and refused to allow him to replace his lawyer, but the Ninth Circuit reversed [opinion, PDF], ruling that the district court abused its discretion.

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments [text], may condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction. The Ninth Circuit held that no second notice was required under the Supreme Court's opinion in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson [opinion text]. The court will also determine whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures.

In Kappos v. Hyatt [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will rule on an area of patent law. When the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) [official website] denies an application for a patent, the applicant may seek judicial review of the agency's final action through either of two avenues. The applicant may obtain direct review of the agency's determination in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under 35 USC § 141 [text]. Alternatively, the applicant may commence a civil action against the Director of the PTO in federal district court under 35 USC § 145 [text] The court will decide whether a plaintiff in a § 145 action may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance. The court will also consider whether, when new evidence is introduced under § 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO. The Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that "§ 145 imposes no limitation on an applicant's right to introduce new evidence before the district court."

In Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will rule on drug patents. When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] approves a drug for multiple uses, the Hatch-Waxman Act allows generic drug makers to avoid contested patent litigation by marketing generic versions of the drug solely for non-patented uses. The FDA lacks the authority and expertise needed to verify the patent information submitted by name-brand drug companies, however, so it defers to their descriptions of the scope of their patents. Such companies can therefore block the approval of generic drugs by submitting overbroad patent descriptions to the FDA, effectively extending their patents to cover non-infringing uses. To combat this problem, the Act allows [21 USC § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I) text] a "counterclaim seeking an order requiring the [patent] holder to correct or delete the patent information submitted by the holder on the ground that the patent does not claim an approved method of using the drug." The Federal Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the counterclaim provision effectively authorizes only "delet[ing]" improperly listed patents, but not "correct[ing]" information that misrepresents the scope of the approved uses claimed by a patent. Petitioners claim that ruling expressly invalidates longstanding FDA regulations defining "patent information," which the FDA deems "essential" to administering the Act, without seeking the agency’s views. The question before the court is whether the counterclaim provision applies when (1) there is "an approved method of using the drug" that "the patent does not claim," and (2) the brand submits "patent information" to the FDA that misstates the patent’s scope, requiring "correct[ion]."

In Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether Congress divested the federal district courts of their federal question jurisdiction [28 USC § 1331 text] over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act [FCC summary, PDF]. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that federal courts lack jurisdiction over private actions under the Act.

In Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals [docket, cert. petition, PDF], the court will determine whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment [text] immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) [DOL backgrounder]. Petitioner Daniel Coleman was terminated from his job at the Maryland Court of Appeals and filed suit under Title VII and FMLA. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed [opinion, PDF] a lower court ruling that dismissed petitioner's FMLA clams as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The court also agreed to hear Credit Suisse Securities LLC v. Simmonds [docket], case involving the statute of limitations for securities litigation.

Last January, the civilian trial of 800 soldiers charged [JURIST report] with crimes stemming from their roles in the 2009 mutiny began in the capital city of Dhaka. The trial involves some of the most serious charges with those found guilty facing the death penalty. The trial is expected to last over a year and to include the testimonies of more than 1,000 individuals. In August 2010, a special Bangladeshi military court sentenced [JURIST report] 14 members of the BDR for their roles in the mutiny. The tribunal, led by BDR head Maj. Gen. Mainul Islam, fined each of the men Tk 100 and sentenced [BDNews24 report] them to prison terms ranging from four months to six years, one year short of the maximum possible sentence for rebellion under Bangladeshi law. About 3,500 other soldiers will face lesser charges in military courts.

Tunisia has been cracking down on the family of Ben Ali since the ousted president fled the country in January amidst protests ending his 23-year autocratic rule in which his family amassed substantial wealth that many Tunisians say was at their expense. Last week, a Tunisian court sentenced [JURIST report] in absentia Sofiane Ben Ali, another nephew of Ben Ali, to 15 years in prison for issuing bad checks totaling more than USD $430,000. That same week, Ben Ali and his wife were convicted in absentia and sentenced to 35 years in prison on charges of theft and unlawful possession of money and jewelry just hours after the trial began that morning [JURIST reports]. The two were also charged with illegal possession of drugs and weapons, but the verdict for those charges would not be announced until June 30. Ben Ali said he was "duped" into leaving [AFP report] the capital Tunis, according to a statement released through his lawyer. He said that he was trying to get his family out of the country after assassination threats and that the plane left him in Saudi Arabia despite orders to wait for him. Ben Ali has denied the charges against him [JURIST report], most of which stem from allegations he authorized the use of force against protesters during the protests, resulting in more than 200 deaths.

The Khmer Rouge have been blamed for the deaths of some 1.7 million people [PPU backgrounder] from starvation, disease, overwork and execution between 1975 and 1979. The UN-backed ECCC was established in 2001 to investigate and try those responsible for the Cambodian genocide that resulted in the deaths of approximately one-third of the Cambodian population. Khieu Samphan has defended [JURIST report] the late Khmer Rouge dictator Pol Pot in his 2007 book, denying that he was responsible for genocide. Nuon Chea was arrested and charged in September 2007 and said that he was never in the position to order the deaths attributed to him, but that he would cooperate with the ECCC [JURIST reports]. Ieng Thirith and Ieng Sary were also arrested and charged in September 2007. The ECCC handed down its first and only conviction [JURIST report] last year against Kaing Guek Eav [TrialWatch profile], better known as "Duch", who was in charge of the notorious S-21 prison in Phnom Penh.

There is also information which indicates that there was a campaign to cover up the alleged crimes through the following acts: (i) targeting journalists to prevent them from reporting events, and punishing them for having done so; (ii) repeatedly blocking satellite transmission of channels such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Hurra and disrupting internet and telecommunications services; (iii) confiscating laptops, cameras, mobile phones SD and SIM cards from persons stopped at checkpoints; (iv) removing dead bodies by the Security Forces including from the hospitals" and throwing of at least one body into a rubbish truck in Tripoli; (v) searching for wounded protesters in the Tripoli hospital; and (vi) leveling to the ground a Mosque which bore bullet holes as a result of an attack by the Security Forces in Al- Zawiyah; and (vii) removing evidence of mass graves in Al-Zawiyah."

Last week, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official website] presented the materials to Pre-Trial Chamber. He said his office had gathered "direct evidence" [JURIST report] that shows Gaddafi personally ordered attacks on civilian protestors and that his forces used live ammunition on crowds, attacked civilians in their homes, used heavy weapons against people in funeral processions and placed snipers to shoot those leaving mosques after prayer services. Moreno-Ocampo announced [JURIST report] last month that his office was pursuing arrest warrants against Gaddafi and the two others in his "inner circle." He said Saif al-Islam was acting as Gaddafi's "de facto Prime Minister" and called al-Sanussi Gaddafi's "right-hand man" and "executioner." At that time, Moreno-Ocampo said his office was almost prepared for trial, having collected quality testimony from some who have fled Libya. There have been numerous allegations of war crimes and human rights violations over the Libyan revolt which has persisted since February. Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) [official website] decided to extend a mandate to an investigative panel instructing it to continue its investigation of human rights abuses in Libya, after it published a 92-page report [JURIST reports]. The report claims Libyan authorities have committed crimes against humanity such as acts constituting murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberties, torture, forced disappearances and rape "as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population with knowledge of the attack."