JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE ARCHIVEDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.
Listen to Paper Chase!


Legal news from Sunday, February 5, 2012




Federal judge allows challenge to Utah anti-polygamy law
Jaimie Cremeans on February 5, 2012 3:14 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of Utah [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday that the Browns, a publicly polygamist family living in Utah, have standing to bring a suit challenging Utah's anti-bigamy law against Utah County Attorney General Jeffrey Buhman. The court dismissed challenges brought against Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff for lack of standing, saying there was insufficient evidence that the state officials had any intention to prosecute the family under these laws. The challenges against Buhman were allowed to stand, however, because there was sufficient evidence that complaints made to county officers had led to an investigation, and there was reason to infer that the county might pursue prosecution under the law. The family challenged the law [JURIST report] in July as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, saying they are not pursuing legal recognition of their marriage, but simply want to end prosecutions against them and other families who choose this lifestyle.

Kody Brown and his four wives, the plaintiffs in this case, are stars of TLC's reality show Sister Wives [official website]. A police investigation [Utah News report] against them has been ongoing since September 2010, when the show was first announced and premiered. Utah's Anti-Bigamy Statute [statute, text] has been on the books since 1862. While polygamy is now recognized in most of Africa and the Middle East, it is still illegal in most of North and South America, Europe and China. In 2005, the US District Court for the District of Utah rejected a similar lawsuit [JURIST report] brought against Utah's Anti-Bigamy Statute, reaffirming the 1879 US Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States [text], which upheld a conviction under an anti-polygamy law as constitutional.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


US army drops charges in Afghan civilian death case
Jaimie Cremeans on February 5, 2012 2:16 PM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Army dropped all charges against Army Specialist Michael Wagnon Friday, ending the final case in a series of related charges against five army personnel accused of killing Afghan civilians. Wagnon had been facing a charge of murder for his alleged involvement in the killing of three Afghan civilians and was expected to go to trial in March. All four of the other soldiers charged in connection with the killings were either convicted or pleaded guilty. In a statement Friday, Army spokesperson Lt. Col. Gary Dangerfield did not go into detail [News Tribune report] about why the charges against Wagnon were dropped, only saying that they were dropped "in the interest of justice." Wagnon was the last of the five soldiers, all members of the 5th Stryker Brigade, to go in front of the court-martial.

Sgt. Calvin Gibbs was convicted of three counts [JURIST report] of premeditated murder in November and was sentenced to life in prison. Gibbs admitted that he cut off fingers from the bodies to keep as trophies but claimed he was acting in self-defense and that they had fired first. Specialist Jeremy Morlock had pleaded guilty [JURIST report] in March to the same premeditated murders and received a sentence of 24 years in prison. As part of his plea deal, Morlock agreed to testify against Gibbs and the rest of his co-defendants. Private Andrew Holmes pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to murder in September and was sentenced [JURIST report] to seven years in prison as part of a plea deal. A month earlier, Specialist Adam Winfield also pleaded guilty [JURIST report] to involuntary manslaughter in connection with the deaths, and was sentenced to three years in prison.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


Virginia lawmakers approve bill allowing adoption agencies to refuse placement
Matthew Pomy on February 5, 2012 11:53 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Virginia House of Delegates [official website] on Friday voted 71-28 to approve a bill [text] that would allow adoption agencies to refuse to place a child if the agency, or anyone affiliated with it, disagrees with the proposed placement based on religious beliefs. Effectively, this bill would allow adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to same-sex couples. Governor Bob McDonnell [official profile] said he will sign the bill if it makes it to his desk. The bill provides, in relevant part:
No private child-placing agency shall be required to consider or consent to any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would conflict with the religious tenets of any sponsor of the agency or other organization or institution with which the child-placing agency is affiliated or associated. ... Refusal of a private child-placing agency to consider or consent to any placement of a child pursuant to this section shall not form the basis of any claim for damages.
The Virginia Board of Social Services already adopted similar regulations in December. This legislation would prevent those regulations from being changed.

Last month an Iowa court ruled that both same-sex parents' names must be recorded on birth certificates. In October the US Supreme Court [official website] denied certiorari [JURIST report] in Adar v. Smith [backgrounder], in which a same-sex couple asked Louisiana to include both of their names on the birth certificate of their adopted child. In April the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down [JURIST report] a state ban on adoptions by same-sex couples. The Supreme Court of Mexico in August 2010 upheld a Mexico City law [JURIST report] allowing adoptions by same-sex couples. Two years before that, a Florida court ruled that a state statute [JURIST report] preventing same-sex couples from adopting children was unconstitutional.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page


France appeals court upholds Scientology fraud conviction
Matthew Pomy on February 5, 2012 10:54 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] A French court of appeals on Thursday upheld the 2009 fraud conviction against the Church of Scientology [church website, JURIST news archive], fining the defendants a total of €600,000. The decision upheld the original conviction of the Spiritual Association of the Church of Scientology (ASES) [church website, in French], an affiliated bookstore, and seven other members for fraud and illegal practice of pharmacy. The complaint was originally filed [JURIST report] by a woman who was recruited in 1998 and spent €21,000 on the church and was then not allowed to leave or receive a reimbursement. The appeals court ordered the ASES to pay €400,000 [AP report] and the bookstore to pay €200,000 in damages to the woman and two other plaintiffs. France does not recognize Scientology as a religion, but the court denied the plaintiffs' request to disband the group in France entirely.

Scientology, founded by American science fiction author L Ron Hubbard in 1954, has also been challenged in Russia, which recently banned its main texts [JURIST report]. Prior to that, in 2009, Russia attempted to block Scientology from registering as a religion, which prompted the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) [official website] to condem the decision as discriminatory. That same year, Belgian prosecutor Jean-Claude Van Espen said Scientology should be classified as a criminal organization [JURIST report] after completing a 10-year investigation into the church's activities.




Link | | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | archive | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST OP-ED

The War on Terror and the Need for Muslim Support
DOMESTIC
Faisal Kutty
Valparaiso University Law School

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

SYNDICATION

Add Paper Chase legal news to your RSS reader or personalized portal:
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Add to My AOL

E-MAIL

Subscribe to Paper Chase by e-mail. JURIST offers a free once-a-day digest [sample]. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.


R|mail e-mails individual Paper Chase posts through the day. Enter your e-mail address below. After subscribing and being returned to this page, please check your e-mail for a confirmation message.

PUBLICATION

Join top US law schools, federal appeals courts, law firms and legal organizations by publishing Paper Chase legal news on your public website or intranet.

JURIST offers a news ticker and preformatted headline boxes updated in real time. Get the code.

Feedroll provides free Paper Chase news boxes with headlines or digests precisely tailored to your website's look and feel, with content updated every 15 minutes. Customize and get the code.

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org