The conviction was upheld through years of appeals, but a new sentencing hearing was granted [JURIST report] in April on the basis of improper jury instructions. The US Supreme Court [official website] declined to opine on the decision in October, which forced prosecutors to decide whether they would pursue the death penalty through a new sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court had considered Abu-Jamal's case in several previous rulings. The court remanded the case to the Third Circuit [JURIST report] in January 2010 for further consideration in light of the ruling in Smith v. Spisak [opinion, PDF; JURIST report]. The Supreme Court declined to review [JURIST report] Abu-Jamal's conviction in April 2009. In 2008, the Third Circuit affirmed [JURIST report] a district court ruling overturning the sentence in Abu-Jamal's case, and the only issue to be determined on remand was whether the court erred in allowing the new sentencing hearing. Abu-Jamal was convicted of killing police officer Daniel Faulkner [advocacy website] after Faulkner pulled over Abu-Jamal's brother for a traffic violation. The case has become a focal point for death penalty opponents and Abu-Jamal's supporters [advocacy website] who believe he was the victim of a racially biased justice system.

Blagojevich was previously found guilty [JURIST report] last year of making false statements to the FBI, but the jury remained deadlocked on 23 additional charges. The prosecutors dropped some of the charges [JURIST report] to simplify the case for retrial, including charges for racketeering. 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 on corruption charges, including allegations that they conspired to sell the Senate seat left vacant by US President Barack Obama.

Other countries have also attempted to outlaw portions of the prostitution trade. In September 2010 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (OSCJ) [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Canada's anti-prostitution laws, citing the danger they generate for sex workers. In Canada, prostitution itself is legal even though many ancillary acts are not. In March, the Supreme Court of Canada [official website] agreed to review a British Columbia Court of Appeal [official website] decision allowing a challenge [JURIST report] to the country's anti-prostitution laws. In November 2009, the Constitutional Court [official website, Taiwanese] of Taiwan ruled that a law penalizing prostitutes [JURIST report] and not their clients was unconstitutional because it undermined equality under the country's constitution.

Currently, the UN Climate Change Conference [official website] is taking place in Durban to focus on the threat of climate change. Weeks before the conference, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [official website] released [JURIST report] the Summary for Policymakers [text, PDF], which outlined available options to decrease risks posed by extreme disasters including effects arising out of increased greenhouse gases. In July, the UN Security Council [official website] made its first official statement [JURIST report] that the climate change is most likely to pose a serious threat to world peace and security.

In November Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak [official profile] defended the bill [JURIST report], saying it would balance citizens' right to protest with public safety concerns. However, the bill has drawn ire from both Malaysians and the international community. Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim [official website; JURIST news archive] has stated that the bill is more draconian than previous free speech crackdowns in Zimbabwe and Myanmar [JURIST reports]. In late October the Malaysian Court of Appeal [official website] ruled that a similar law prohibiting college students from taking part in political activities is unconstitutional [JURIST report]. The suit, filed by four International Islamic University of Malaysia [official website] students in 2010, challenged the constitutionality of the 1971 Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) [text, PDF] prohibiting students from political participation. Also last 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 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.

This settlement agreement by BOA is the latest attempt by the corporation to move past legal issues that have plagued it in recent years. Last month, a senior judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida [official website] gave final approval [JURIST report] to a $410 million settlement in the class action suit against BOA for overdraft fees that affected more than 13 million people. Judge James Lawrence King found this agreement to be fair and reasonable [AP report] even though customers will not be fully compensated for overdraft fees which averaged approximately $35 per transaction. Approximately 13.2 million customers who had a debit card with BOA between January 2001 and May 2011 will have money credited to their account or will receive checks from BOA as a result of this settlement. The settlement with BOA, which was reached in February, was given preliminary approval [JURIST reports] in May. BOA is among more than two dozen US, Canadian and European lenders named as defendants in the class action lawsuit, which consolidated claims across the country in 2009. In their amended complaint [text, PDF], the plaintiffs claimed that BOA's practices were deceptive in that they did not reasonably notify customers that they had the option of opting out of the overdraft scheme and declining transactions. The complaint also alleged that BOA's excessive fees disproportionately effect low-income customers.

The immigration law has faced numerous challenges in court since it took effect in September. Last month, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed a brief [JURIST report] in the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit urging the court to strike down the law. The DOJ filed its brief in response to a federal judge's September 28 ruling [opinion text] that allowed the state to enforce a provision that makes it a felony for an illegal alien to conduct business with the state, among other provisions. The DOJ argued in its brief that the Alabama immigration laws are preempted by federal laws regulating immigration in the US because of the Supremacy Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] in the US Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website] filed a separate brief also asking the court to overturn the new law. The ACLU's brief argued that the laws are designed to make life in Alabama so difficult for illegal aliens that they will be forced to leave the state [JURIST op-ed]. Like the DOJ, the ACLU argued that Alabama's law is a direct attempt to regulate immigration, which is an area that the states have no legitimate interest in regulating and is left only to the federal government to legislate.

Mubarak's trial is scheduled to resume on December 28, after being postponed [JURIST report] in October to allow the court to rule on the prosecution's motion to removed the three-judge panel. The victims' families argued they were not given enough time [Al Jazeera report] to question Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi [GlobalSecurity profile], head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) [NYT backgrounder] ruling Egypt. Tantawi, who served as Mubarak's defense minister for over 20 years, testified against Mubarak in a closed-session but left early and refused to be cross-examined by counsel for the victims. The trial was also suspended [JURIST report] from September until October on judicial bias claims. Mubarak pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to all charges when the trial began in August. Mubarak could face the death penalty [JURIST report] if convicted of ordering attacks on protesters.

The average man on the street does not understand the intricacies of Supreme Court opinions, but does have the sense that something is amiss when there are so many 5-4 decisions. People think the law is objectively determinable and does not depend upon the individual judges' personal predilections. So the common sense question arises as to whether the Court is really stating the law when there are so many split decisions. When people are told that there are ideological splits, it is even more distressing. Frequent opinion polls show the public has little understanding of the Constitution or how government works. As we strive for an educated citizenry, especially among the younger generation, television should cover the government as well as sports and soaps. The authority and legitimacy of the Supreme Court depends upon its acceptance by the public. Television would give the public the opportunity to understand and evaluate the Court's performance and the Court and opportunity to establish its legitimacy.

The current Supreme Court roster has varying opinions on allowing cameras into their proceedings. In September, Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer testified [hearing materials] before the Judiciary Committee on a variety of issues, including televising their arguments and opinion announcements. Both were against the idea, arguing that it would not be used by the populace for anything worthwhile. Scalia was concerned with the ability of the media to misrepresent the court: "I was initially in favor of televising, but the longer I've been there, the less good idea I think it is. [F]or every 10 people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 people who would see nothing but a 30-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do." In contrast, Justice Elena Kagan has spoken out for the introduction of cameras [CSPAN interview video]: "[I]f everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating and I thought, it's such a shame actually that only 200 people a day can get to see it and then a bunch of other people can read about it. Because reading about it is not the same experience as actually seeing." Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito were both for televising proceedings in their tenure as lower court judges. Sotomayor continues to warm to the idea, while Alito, in his confirmation hearings, urged that the Supreme Court faces different considerations than lower courts. The other justices, to varying degrees, have seemed wary of the idea [ABC News report], Chief Justice John Roberts speculating that it would encourage grandstanding and reduce substantive discussion. Former justice David Souter was against cameras [NYT report], saying in 1996, "I think the case is so strong that I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."

Now this—I can give an example or an analogy. Suppose a police officer were to testify: A witness gave me this photograph and told me: This is a photograph of the offender. I compared this photograph to a photograph of the defendant. I found that they match. Now, the police officer, he compared the photographs. You know, we are not contesting [the testifying analyst's] match. But the statement that this is the photo of the offender, that's not the officer's statement. That's a statement of the witness who gave him that photograph.

In Martel v. Clair [transcript, PDF; JURIST report], 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 because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. The attorney the state of California, argued that due to numerous safeguards and procedural rulings on the effectiveness of Clair's counsel, the state had done due diligence in protecting his rights and did not have an obligation to grant him new counsel after 12 years of proceedings. The attorney for Clair disagreed and argued that Clair did not have a right to new counsel, merely a right to a thorough investigation of his current counsel, which he was denied.