In Missouri v. Frye [transcript, PDF], respondent Galin Frye was offered two deals by prosecutors during proceedings for driving with a revoked license, but Frye's attorney never informed his client about the offers and Frye pleaded guilty. The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the attorney's failure to inform his client about the plea offers amounted to unconstitutional ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel for the state argued that "Mr. Frye has failed to show prejudice, and therefore his guilty plea remains voluntary, intelligent, and final." Counsel for the US government argued on behalf of petitioners in both cases.

Revenge against the people from Tawergha, whatever the accusations against them, undermines the goal of the Libyan revolution. In the new Libya, Tawerghans accused of wrongdoing should be prosecuted based on the law, not subject to vigilante justice... The entire town of Tawergha should not be punished for the crimes of some individuals. Prosecutions of people who committed serious crimes are the way forward, with respect for victims' privacy, not the forced expulsion of the entire town.

Last week, the interim Libyan leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil [official profile] ordered an investigation [JURIST report] into the circumstances surrounding the capture and death of Gaddafi, which raised questions of whether the former leader was killed due to his wounds during the fight or whether he was killed by his own supporters to prevent him from implicating them in any crimes under his regime. On October 20, Gaddafi was captured and killed [JURIST report] by NTC during its seizure of his hometown, Sirte, marking the latest milestone in the Libya conflict [JURIST feature] that started in February. The Libyan government under the regime of Gaddafi was criticized by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Navi Pillay [official website] for war crimes [JURIST report] during the siege of Misrata.

Today the Court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles. A sharply divided Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has declared unconstitutional a private association's efforts to memorialize slain police officers with white roadside crosses, holding that the crosses convey to a reasonable observer that the State of Utah is endorsing Christianity. The Tenth Circuit's opinion is one of the latest in a long line of "'religious display'" decisions that, because of this Court's nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than "judicial predilections." Because our jurisprudence has confounded the lower courts and rendered the constitutionality of displays of religious imagery on government property anyone's guess, I would grant certiorari.

Also Monday, the court issued a per curiam opinion [text, PDF] in Cavazos v. Smith [docket; cert. petition, PDF], summarily reversing the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the appeals court, "substituted its judgment for that of a California jury on the question whether the prosecution's or the defense's expert witnesses more persuasively explained the cause of a death." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, calling the court's summary disposition, "a misuse of discretion."

Since leaving office, Ben Ali and his associates have been embroiled in legal controversy. In August, members of Ben Ali's family were convicted [JURIST report] of aiding the former president's flight from Tunisia following his ouster. In June, Ben Ali [JURIST report] and his nephew [JURIST report] were convicted in absentia on charges of financial corruption and were given sentences of 35 and 15 years respectively. In April, Ben Ali was charged [JURIST report] with 18 offenses related to the use of force against protesters during the Tunisian revolution. In January, an arrest warrant for Ben Ali, his wife and other family members was issued [JURIST report] for illegal money transfers and the incitement of armed violence.

The 18-month sentence imposed on Monday is the conclusion of the second of three contempt charges filed against Seselj. The first charge resulted in a 15-month sentence that he will serve concurrently with the 18-month sentence, and the third charge [JURIST reports] is currently underway. Seselj's war crimes trial began [JURIST report] in 2007 at the ICTY after he was charged [indictment, PDF] with three counts of crimes against humanity and six counts of war crimes and accused of establishing rogue paramilitary units affiliated with the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRS), which are believed to have massacred and otherwise persecuted Croats and other non-Serbs during the Balkan conflict. The trial was suspended [JURIST report] in 2009 because of concerns witnesses were being intimidated. The 2-1 ruling came in response to a motion filed by prosecutors in which they argued [court transcripts] there was "clear and convincing evidence that going forward will compromise the integrity and fairness of the proceedings." The trial resumed in 2010 after the delay, and was again ordered to continue in 2011 after Seselj sought to have the charges be dismissed [case sheet, PDF]. The trial is currently ongoing.

Mubarak is on trial for murder, attempted killing of protesters and other charges related to general abuse of power [Al Jazeera report] stemming from his response to pro-democracy demonstrations in Egypt earlier this year. Mubarak's sons, Gamal and Alaa, are also on trial for corruption charges. Mubarak's trial began on August 3 [JURIST report] with Mubarak and his sons pleading not guilty to all charges. In July, officials chose a new location for Mubarak's trial for security reasons after reporting [JURIST reports] that the trial would take place in downtown Cairo. Also in July, an Egyptian criminal court postponed the trial [JURIST report] of former interior minister Habib el-Adly, who also faces murder charges in relation to the pro-democracy demonstrations, so it would coincide with Mubarak's trial. In March, a commission of Arab and Egyptian human rights groups accused Mubarak [JURIST report] and the police of murdering protesters during the demonstrations in Egypt. Mubarak could face the death penalty [JURIST report] if convicted of ordering attacks on protesters.

The constitutional challenge to the UUCA is not the only ongoing legal challenge to long standing Malaysian law. Early this month, Malaysia's government released 125 prisoners [JURIST report] who were being held under a decades-old security law that has been widely criticized by human rights and opposition groups. In an address to Parliament [official website], Prime Minister Najib Razak [official profile] announced the release of all individuals being held under the Restricted Residence Act of 1933 [text, PDF], the British colonial-era act that enables authorities to banish suspects to remote districts and force them to report regularly to police. In September, Razak announced that the government would repeal two strict security laws [JURIST report] that had allowed extended detention of suspects without trial. The government also said that it will review other laws dealing with freedom of the press, including the Restricted Residence Act.