|
|
|
Marine wants new charges in Iraq war crime tossed
Legal Network |
2014/10/30 16:45
|
The Marine Corps should not be retrying a sergeant whose murder conviction in a major Iraq war crime case was overturned by the military's highest court after he served half of his 11-year sentence, his defense attorneys say.
Civilian defense attorney Chris Oprison said he has filed nine motions that he will present during a two-day hearing for Lawrence Hutchins III that starts Thursday at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base, north of San Diego.
"We think all these charges should be dismissed," Oprison said. "What are they trying to get out of this Marine? He served seven years locked up, away from his wife and family. Why are they putting him through this again after he served that much time?"
The military prosecution declined to comment.
The Marine Corps ordered a retrial for Hutchins last year shortly after the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that found his rights were violated by interrogators in 2006 when he was detained in Iraq and held in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer for a week.
The new defense team is asking the judge to let them go to Iraq to interview witnesses in the village of Hamdania, where Hutchins led an eight-man squad accused of kidnapping an Iraqi man from his home in April 2006, marching him to a ditch and shooting him to death. Hutchins has said he thought the man was an insurgent.
Before his release, the Marine, from Plymouth, Massachusetts, had served seven years in the brig for one of the biggest war crime cases against U.S. troops to emerge from the war. None of the other seven squad members served more than 18 months.
The military last summer re-charged Hutchins. Among the charges is conspiracy to commit murder, which Oprison said is double jeopardy. Hutchins was convicted of murder at his original trial and acquitted of murder with premeditation.
Hutchins' defense attorneys also say the military compromised his case when its investigators raided defense attorneys' offices at Camp Pendleton in May. Oprison said investigators rifled through privileged files that held "the crown jewels" of Hutchins' defense case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts Real Estate Attorney
Legal Network |
2014/10/22 20:15
|
For more than 30 years, Attorney Alan H. Segal has been lending legal expertise to the Greater Boston Massachusetts area from his Needham, Massachusetts Law Office. With great attentiveness, Alan and his associates have given legal consultation in business law, estate planning, and Massachusetts real estate law.
You can find Alan on the radio, cable, and local television sharing his ideas about current legal news. Navigating your way through the legal system can be a confusing and difficult task. He and his staff know that and want to be there for you as "YOUR LAWYER".
To visit the Law Office of Alan H. Segal, head to the intersection of Highland Ave and Route 128/95 on the Newton / Needham border, next to Staples.
Attorney Alan H. Segal has been known as a renowned Massachusetts real estate attorney for over 30 years. Sellers, buyers, and lenders of Massachusetts real estate property are all represented by his practice.
It is prudent to seek the guidance of a real estate agent like Alan to help with all real estate home buying in Massachusetts, as all such transactions have legal issues and tax consequences.
If you need an experienced Massachusetts real estate attorney contact us today for a free and confidential consultation!
If you require an experienced real estate attorney in Massachusetts, contact us today! The consultation is confidential and free! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ag-gag laws facing federal court challenges
Legal Network |
2014/07/21 22:42
|
The years-long fight between farm organizations and animal rights activists over laws prohibiting secretly filmed documentation of animal abuse is moving from state legislatures to federal courts as laws in Utah and Idaho face constitutional challenges.
Half of U.S. states have attempted to pass so-called ag-gag laws, but only seven have been successful. Among them are Idaho, where this year's law says unauthorized recording is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine, and Utah, whose 2012 law makes it a crime to provide false information to gain access to a farm. Both states now face separate but similarly worded lawsuits that say the measures violate federal statutes offering whistleblower protections and free-speech guarantees.
Farm organizations and livestock producers say ag-gag laws are aimed at protecting their homes and businesses from intruders, and some plan to use social media to assure the public they have nothing to hide. But animal rights groups, free-speech activists and investigative journalists want to throw out the laws because they say the secrecy puts consumers at higher risk of food safety problems and animals at higher risk of abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire court upholds COPSLIE vanity plate
Legal Network |
2014/05/09 17:51
|
If a New Hampshire man thinks cops lie, he's free to say so on his license plate, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.
In a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court agreed with the arguments of David Montenegro, who wanted the vanity plate reading "COPSLIE" to protest what he calls government corruption.
State law prohibits vanity plates that "a reasonable person would find offensive to good taste." But the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union argued that the law is unconstitutionally vague and gives too much discretion to a person behind a Department of Motor Vehicles counter.
New Hampshire had argued that state workers were right to deny the plate, because the phrase disparages an entire class of people — police officers.
The justices said that state law does not define the phrase "offensive to good taste."
"The restriction grants DMV officials the power to deny a proposed vanity registration plate because it offends particular officials' subjective idea of what is 'good taste,'" the court wrote. The decision states the law is unconstitutionally vague and violates free speech rights.
The case was sent back to Strafford County Superior Court for further proceedings.
Attorney Anthony Galdieri, who argued the case on behalf of Montenegro and the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, said he was not surprised by the ruling. "This regulation was an impermissible way to regulate speech under the First Amendment," Galdieri said. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
