Tag Archives: Circuit Court

Arizona woman reviled for son's murder may go free

Debra Milke was once one of the most reviled mothers around, convicted of dressing her 4-year-old son in his favorite outfit and sending him off to visit a mall Santa Claus with two men who shot the boy execution-style in the Arizona desert.

Milke said she had nothing to do with Christopher’s death, but a detective testified at her 1990 trial that she had confessed to him — and him alone — in a closed interrogation room. Prosecutors said she killed her son to collect on a $5,000 insurance policy.

Now, Milke could walk free, leaving death row behind after a federal appeals court threw out her conviction Thursday because prosecutors had not turned over evidence of the detective’s history of misconduct, including lying under oath in other cases.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded that prosecutors’ failure to turn over the evidence deprived Milke’s attorneys of the chance to question Phoenix Police Detective Armando Saldate Jr.’s credibility before jurors.

And because it was the only direct evidence tying her to the killing, that fact could have swayed the jury, the panel ruled.

“No civilized system of justice should have to depend on such flimsy evidence, quite possibly tainted by dishonesty or overzealousness, to decide whether to take someone’s life or liberty,” according to the opinion by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

The ruling has raised questions about other cases in which the now-retired Saldate gave testimony.

The court noted four cases where judges threw out confessions or indictments because Saldate lied under oath and four instances where cases were tossed or confessions excluded because Saldate violated the suspect’s constitutional rights.

He was also suspended for accepting sexual favors from a female motorist he stopped and then lying about the encounter, it said.

Saldate, who was elected to a county constable post after retiring but has now left that post, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said he intends to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and will argue it himself if they accept the case, saying the decision was the first to raise the issue after decades of court hearings.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Court overturns convictions of Arizona woman on death row

A federal appeals court on Thursday threw out the convictions of a woman sentenced to death in the notorious 1989 killing of her 4-year-old son, ruling that the case was tainted by a detective with a history of lying under oath.

The ruling marked a surprising turn in a case that made national headlines with the brazen and gruesome nature of the crime. Prosecutors said Debra Jean Milke dressed up her son Christopher in his favorite outfit and told him he was going to see Santa Claus at a mall during the holidays.

Instead, he was taken into the desert by her boyfriend and another man and shot three times in the back of the head as part of what prosecutors said was a plot by Milke and the two other defendants to collect a $50,000 life insurance policy.

Milke would have been the first woman executed in Arizona since the 1930s had her appeals run out. The Arizona Supreme Court had gone so far to issue a death warrant for Milke in 1997, but the execution was delayed because she had yet to exhaust federal appeals.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the prosecution failed to disclose information about a history of misconduct by a detective who testified that Milke confessed to plotting her son’s murder.

That record included multiple court rulings in other cases that former Detective Armando Saldate Jr. either lied under oath or violated suspects’ Miranda rights during interrogations.

Prosecutors are required to provide a defendant’s lawyers with material that might support a not guilty verdict, including material that could undermine the credibility of a prosecution witness.

There was no other witness or recording of the purported confession by Milke, who has proclaimed her innocence.

“No civilized system of justice should have to depend on such flimsy evidence, quite possibly tainted by dishonesty or overzealousness, to decide whether to take someone’s life or liberty,” Chief Justice Alex Kozinski wrote in the decision.

The trial amounted to “a swearing contest” in which the judge and jury ultimately believed the detective over Milke, but they didn’t know of his record of dishonesty and misconduct, Kozinski wrote.

The ruling reversed a U.S. District Court judge’s ruling and ordered the lower court to require Arizona authorities to turn over all relevant personnel records for the detective.

Once the material is produced and defense lawyers have time to review it, prosecutors will have 30 days to decide whether to retry her. If they don’t, she will be released from prison.

Maricopa County prosecutors had yet to read the ruling and had no immediate comment on the decision, spokesman Jerry Cobb said.

But the Arizona Attorney General’s Office said it was reviewing the case and will likely file an appeal.

Rick Romley, who was the county attorney from 1989-2004, said he remembers the fact were quite strong against Milke and there never was a question in his mind that she wasn’t guilty.

“If she walks, it’s a travesty of justice,” Romley told KPHO-TV. “You just can’t get around that.”

Milke …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

'Whitey' Bulger judge removed from trial

DEVELOPING: A federal appeals court has agreed to a defense request to remove the judge who was set to preside over the trial of accused gangster James “Whitey” Bulger.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns must step down from Bulger’s case.

Bulger’s lawyers argued that Stearns should be removed from the case because he was a federal prosecutor in Boston in the 1980s. At the time, Bulger was working as an FBI informant while allegedly committing crimes, including murder.

Bulger claims he received immunity for his crimes from another federal prosecutor who worked in the same office as Stearns while Bulger was giving the FBI information on the Mafia.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Appeals court upholds California terror conviction

A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a man who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for attending an Al Qaeda terrorist training camp and plotting against targets in the United States.

Hamid Hayat was convicted in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists and lying to FBI agents. Prosecutors said Hayat, now age 30, planned attacks on hospitals, banks, grocery stores and government buildings.

He argued on appeal that the jury’s foreman was biased, and that the trial judge improperly allowed the jury to consider prejudicial evidence from some witnesses while excluding mitigating testimony from the defense.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split in upholding Hayat’s conviction.

The U.S. citizen from Lodi, a farming and grape-growing region 35 miles (56 kilometers) south of Sacramento, was arrested in June 2005 after he returned from spending two years in Pakistan. He had no prior convictions.

An FBI informant courted Hayat as a friend and secretly recorded their conversations. Hayat discussed jihad, praised Al Qaeda and expressed support for religious governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also made a videotaped confession after an all-night FBI interrogation following his arrest.

Judge A. Wallace Tashima dissented from his two colleagues, saying he would have overturned the conviction. He criticized what he called a case of “anticipatory prosecution” spurred by the government‘s efforts to fight terrorism.

“The government asked a jury to deprive a man of his liberty largely based on dire, but vague, predictions that the defendant might commit unspecified crimes in the future,” Tashima wrote, highlighting “might” in italics.

Hayat’s appellate attorneys, Dennis Riordan and Donald Horgan of San Francisco, did not immediately comment. They could ask the appeals court to reconsider the decision, or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner said the decision “confirms that Hayat received a fair and constitutional trial.”

Hayat is serving his sentence at a medium security federal prison near Phoenix, according to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons online database.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Ohio man exonerated of murder after 13 years in prison wins $13.2M

An Ohio man who was exonerated after spending 13 years in prison for murder cried as a federal jury found that two Cleveland police detectives violated his civil rights by coercing and falsifying testimony and withholding evidence that pointed to his innocence.

The jury’s verdict on Friday, which included awarding $13.2 million to David Ayers of Cleveland for his pain and suffering, brings an end to the legal battle he’s been fighting since his arrest in the 1999 killing of 76-year-old Dorothy Brown.

Ayers, 56, was released from prison in 2011 after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed his conviction and the state decided not to seek another trial.

Ayers, who was a security guard for the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, had been found guilty of killing Brown at her CMHA apartment in Cleveland. She was found bludgeoned to death, covered in defensive wounds and naked from the waist down; she also had been robbed. DNA testing later proved that a pubic hair found in her mouth did not come from Ayers.

“This should have been stopped a long time ago,” Ayers told the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the jury’s verdict Friday. “My goal is that it never happens to anyone else ever again.”

A phone number listed for Ayers did not accept messages Saturday.

Ayers filed his civil rights lawsuit in March 2012 against six Cleveland police officers, the city and the county housing authority. Allegations against three of the officers, the city and the housing authority were dismissed by a judge who found that their roles did not violate Ayers’ rights.

One of the remaining officers settled out of court with Ayers for an undisclosed amount. The Friday verdict was against Michael Cipo and Denise Kovach, who were the lead investigators in the case.

Kovach and Cipo could not be reached for comment. They have denied misconduct.

Phone and email requests for comment with Cleveland police and the three city attorneys who represent Cipo and Kovach were not immediately answered Saturday. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that attorney Rachel Steinback of Chicago, who represented Ayers, said the city is self-insured so the award will come from taxpayer money, not an insurance company.

Among the most serious allegations by Ayers against Kovach and Cipo were that the two detectives conspired with each other to fabricate a confession that he never made, coerced a friend of Ayers to lie by saying that Ayers had told him of the murder before Brown’s body was discovered, and gave key information about the crime to Ayers’ prison cellmate so he could later testify against Ayers about an admission he didn’t make.

In an August filing, Cipo and Kovach argued to have the lawsuit dismissed, saying that they acted in good faith and with probable cause, and that Ayers was responsible for any alleged injuries that he incurred.

Federal Judge James Gwin denied their request late last month shortly before the trial, ruling that Ayers had produced sufficient evidence that the detectives had violated his rights.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Exonerated Ohio man wins civil rights suit, $13.2M

An Ohio man who spent 13 years in prison for a murder that DNA testing later proved he didn’t commit was crying as a federal jury found that two police detectives violated his civil rights by coercing and falsifying testimony and withholding evidence that pointed to his innocence.

The jury’s verdict Friday included awarding $13.2 million to David Ayers of Cleveland for his pain and suffering.

The 56-year-old Ayers was released from prison in September 2011 after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed his conviction and the state decided not to seek another trial.

He had been found guilty in the 1999 killing of 76-year-old Dorothy Brown, who was found in her Cleveland apartment bludgeoned to death and naked from the waist down.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Court limits border searches of electronic devices

A federal appeals court says Border Patrol agents must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before conducting a forensic search on an electronic device.

Constitutional law experts say the Friday ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a significant victory toward limiting illegal searches and protecting digital privacy.

The case centers on a U.S. citizen whose laptop was seized at the Arizona-Mexico border. After a monthslong review, federal investigators found hundreds of hidden child pornography files on Howard Cotterman‘s computer.

A district court previously found the search unconstitutional and suppressed the evidence against Cotterman.

But the higher court says federal agents had reasonable suspicion based on a previous child molestation conviction against Cotterman.

Border officials claim they don’t need reasonable suspicion to search electronic devices.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Obamacare Can Still Be Overturned

By Emma Karlin

Buy Obamacare Bonds Obamacare can Still be overturned

There IS a small ray of light shining up from the rubble of what is left of America. With Republican governors acting like – well, Republicans and crawling back to lick Barack Obama’s boots, it IS hard to accept; but the fight against Obamacare is still on. The feckless and traitorous John Roberts may not have destroyed us after all.

A lawsuit against the worst elements of Obamacare brought by Liberty Counsel, which has of course been ignored by the Democrat-controlled media, has been set for a rehearing by the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be reheard in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Court observers describe this move as extremely rare and believe this means the matter will almost certainly find its way back up to the Supreme Court itself.

Acting on a Supreme Court directive, Liberty Counsel, which is devoted to defending Christian civil rights, has filed a brief in defense of Liberty University. It has been green-lighted to argue not only against the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, but the employer mandate, the abortion mandate on religious institutions, and the individual abortion mandate. Moreover, Liberty may argue against the entire Obamacare bill, which could collapse it completely based on the indisputable fact that Robert’s pronouncement of it as a tax stands in direct conflict to constitutional law demanding that all spending bills originate in the House and not the Senate, as what happened.

The Liberty case is the only one in the country challenging the entire employee mandate for all employers, not just “recognized” religious institutions. It will now be able to argue against the violation of an individual’s right to  refuse to support abortion and its related actions based on a personal moral revulsion to the murder of innocent babies.

Obama may be able to buy off the plaintiffs in other cases, but not this one. Roberts will have to explain how what he called a tax could have originated in the Senate.  There IS a small ray of hope of deliverance after all.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Killing The Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

By Matt Barber

Obamacare SC Killing the Obamacare Zombie: Hope Lives!

“But Republican governors are folding like cheap lawn chairs,” you say. “And political eunuchs in the GOP establishment are bowing to Obama like he bows to foreign dictators. Any hope of repeal is long dead, and besides, Chief Justice John Roberts put the final nail in the judicial coffin last summer, didn’t he? Any chance of killing the Obamacare zombie is gone, right?”

Wrong.

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media paid it little attention; but back in November, the U.S. Supreme Court shocked many in the legal community by granting Liberty Counsel’s motion for a rehearing on its multi-pronged challenge to Obamacare. The high court ordered the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments. This is extremely rare and means, almost certainly, that Chief Justice Roberts will get another bite at the rotten apple – this time, with a whole new quiver of legal arrows.

Following the Supreme Court’s directive, Liberty Counsel recently filed its brief in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner. The Christian civil rights firm represents Liberty University and two private individuals in this case. While there are other legal challenges to the employer contraceptive/abortifacient mandate, Liberty Counsel’s is the most comprehensive case pending in the country.

The lawsuit challenges 1) the employer mandate for all employers; 2) the abortion mandate for religious employers; 3) the abortion mandate for individuals; and 4) the entire law because tax bills must originate in the House (and Obamacare originated in the Senate.)

This case is the only one in the country that challenges the entire employer mandate for all employers. Like other pending cases, Liberty Counsel’s also challenges the so-called “Preventative coverage” mandate, which requires employers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and IUDs, which also causes abortion.

Additionally, Obamacare compels individual citizens to violate their conscience by making them directly fund abortion homicide – both surgical and chemical – under penalty of law. It forces all employees who are part of a plan that offers abortion coverage to pay $1 per month directly to a “free” abortion fund. There is no opt-out provision, and information relative to which plans offer abortion is intentionally covered up. This too is part of the case, so don’t let anyone tell you that Obamacare doesn’t require you to fund abortion on demand. If they do, they’re simply lying through their triple-grande,-four-pump-hazelnut-mocha-stained teeth.

Finally, Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that Obamacare is invalid because, since it’s a tax – as the Supreme Court already ruled in June – it violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause. To pass constitutional muster, tax bills must originate in the House, not the Senate.

Before the Democrat-led Senate rammed it through in the dead of night on Christmas Eve 2009, Senate majority leader Harry Reid used a House bill unrelated to Obamacare, struck all the language and the title so that only the former HR number remained, and then inserted a new title and over 2,000 pages of job-killing, economy-crushing, health-care-rationing compost.

Sneaky? Yes. Typical? No doubt. Unconstitutional? Absolutely. It’s like dropping a Ford Pinto engine into …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Argentina heads to U.S. appeals court in bond fight

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez De Kirchner is seen as she arrives to speaks with the media at the summit of the Community of Latin American, Caribbean States and European Union in Santiago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Argentina will seek on Wednesday to persuade a U.S. appeals court to reverse an order that it pay $1.3 billion to a group of dissident bondholders stemming from the country's 2001 default, a showdown that could have wide impact on global debt markets. The arguments at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York are being closely watched amid fears of a new Argentina debt crisis if the country must pay the so-called “holdout” investors. For years, the holdouts have demanded full payment after spurning two debt exchanges. …

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Yahoo Business

U.S. appeals court voids Encore debt settlement

(Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Tuesday voided a controversial $5.2 million settlement intended to resolve allegations that Encore Capital Group Inc used false affidavits and other illegal tactics to collect debts from 1.44 million consumers. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said U.S. District Judge David Katz abused his discretion in August 2011 when he approved the settlement with Encore and its Midland Funding and Midland Credit Management units as “fair, reasonable and adequate,” and certified a nationwide settlement class. … …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Yahoo Business

St Joe investors lose in court; Einhorn had shorted stock

Einhorn, president of Greenlight Capital, speaks during the Sohn Investment Conference in New York

(Reuters) – A federal appeals court has made it harder for investors to rely on reports from short sellers when bringing securities fraud lawsuits, in a case against a Florida developer long criticized by prominent hedge fund manager David Einhorn. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said St Joe Co was not liable to investors whose shares lost value after Einhorn, who runs Greenlight Capital Inc, accused the developer of vastly overvaluing its real estate holdings. …

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Yahoo Business

Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

By Doug Book

guns SC Illinois Must Honor Concealed Carry Law

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the last time that she MUST honor the Constitution of the United States by doing away with her state’s ban on the concealed carry of firearms.

It was back in December of last year that a 3 judge panel of the Court found the Illinois law banning concealed carry to be unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has decided that the [2nd] amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” wrote 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, paraphrasing the opinion of S.C. Justice Samuel Alito.  Naturally, the scrupulously liberal Madigan then petitioned the entire 10 member court, hoping that the ruling might be overturned. But the full court refused to reconsider the ruling of the panel. (1)

And now the Illinois legislature has about 4 months to rewrite its unconstitutional ban into something acceptable to groups which strictly preserve the 2ndAmendment rights of the American people. And that is the REAL question: will the ONLY remaining state to disallow concealed carry abide by the ruling of the court by creating an honest and reasonable statute? If so, it will represent a truly staggering break with the leftist-inspired, Illinois tradition of governing as though rights were privileges of which the common classes are rarely if ever deserving.

After the 2010 McDonald v Chicago decision in which the Supreme Court struck down the city’s decades-old, unconstitutional handgun ban, brainless thug Mayor Richard Daley and city officials crafted a new ordinance to “comply” with the ruling. Naturally, this group of self-serving thieves and political prostitutes sought only to defy the Court with an ordinance which limited each person to ONE operable weapon; allowed no gun to be taken outside the home; prohibited the existence of gun stores and firing ranges within the city; mandated “approved” training and marksmanship; charged $100 for a 3 year pistol permit; banned handguns the police superintendent considered “unsafe due to their size” and, of course, required fingerprinting of gun owners and registration of their weapons.  Needless to say, these provisions did NOT apply to law enforcement or certain city officials. (2)

Since that time, constitutional rights groups have been in court with the City of Chicago on a seemingly daily basis, suing to terminate the Daley legacy of wanton abrogation of liberty. On three occasions, the city has lost court decisions to the NRA and twice Rahm Emanuel has decided to amend the Daley ordinance, “…conceding that the city had little chance of successfully defending lawsuits against certain aspects of it.” (3)

Incredibly, Chicago City Corporation Counsel Steve Patton has accused the NRA and others of “…cherry-pick[ing] the things they thought they could marshal a challenge (on).” How does one “cherry-pick” UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions in a city ordinance? Could anything be more typical of a Chicago official than to whine because the city’s assault on freedom has been found unacceptable by those who prefer liberty to the beneficent dictatorship of nanny-state hoodlums!

Leftist …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Madoff indirect investors lose U.S. court appeal

Bernard Madoff departs US Federal Court after a hearing in New York

(Reuters) – People who lost money by investing in funds that funneled their money to Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme are not entitled to recover for their losses, in the manner that direct victims of the massive fraud can recover, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday. The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York is a victory for Irving Picard, the trustee liquidating Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities LLC and seeking money for its former customers. …

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Yahoo Business

German parents want US asylum over anti-Christian schooling issue

A couple who fled Germany with their five children over fears they would lose custody for not sending them to school has asked a U.S. appeals court to grant them asylum, saying schools in Germany are anti-Christian.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike say in court documents that they believe God wants them to teach their children at home.

Germany‘s government requires students to attend a state-approved school, and parents who violate the law can face fines, jail and possible custody loss.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided this week to hear oral arguments in April. The court will hear two competing pictures of the parents.

In the view of the Home School Legal Defense Association, which represents the parents, the Romeikes have been persecuted by the German government for exercising their right to direct their children’s education, like many parents do in the U.S.

The U.S. government, however, believes the Romeikes’ case does not rise to the level of persecution and says they are not being singled out for their religious beliefs.

What the Romeikes did and what happened to them is not in dispute.

According to court documents, the Romeikes took their three oldest children out of school in September 2006 because they felt the school was turning the children against the family’s Christian values. After a series of visits and letters by officials, police came to the house and drove the children to school. Hannelore Romeike went to the school at recess and took them back home.

Police came three days later, but members of the family’s home schooling support group were there protesting, and police left. Next, the government began issuing fines, which eventually totaled about 7,000 euros, or more than $9,000.

The Romeikes decided to leave the country after Germany‘s highest appellate court ruled in November 2007 in an unrelated case that, in severe situations, social services officials could remove children from their parents.

In 2008, they moved from Bissingen an der Teck in the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg to Tennessee and applied for asylum.

The U.S. government said in court documents the Romeikes did not belong to any particular Christian denomination and described the parents’ objections to the government-approved schools as vague.

For instance, Uwe Romeike claimed a textbook “featured a story suggesting that `the devil can help you if you ask the devil, but God would not help you,”‘ the government said. But he could not recall the title of the story or its author.

Romeike also claimed the schools taught witchcraft based on a game played by classmates of his wife when she was in the seventh grade “that involved pushing chairs and glasses around, and dangling a pendulum.”

The family initially was granted asylum by U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence Burman in Memphis in 2010. He concluded that “the (German) government is attempting to enforce this Nazi-era law against people that it purely seems to detest because of their desire to keep their children out of school.”

On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals found Burman’s assertion to be erroneous and stated the record did not support the …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

German home-school parents appeal asylum ruling

A couple that fled Germany with their five children over fears they would lose custody for not sending them to school has asked a federal appeals court to grant them asylum in the U.S.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided this week to hear oral arguments in April.

Attendance in a state-approved school is required in Germany, and parents who violate the law can face fines, jail and possible custody loss. Nonetheless, the Romeikes (roh-MY-kees) removed their children from school in 2006 because they felt it was turning the children against the family’s Christian values.

The U.S. government believes the Romeikes’ case does not rise to the level of persecution, and they are not being singled out for their religious beliefs.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Last 2 Amish defendants appeal convictions in Ohio

The last two of 16 Amish found guilty in beard- and hair-cutting attacks on fellow Amish in Ohio have appealed their convictions.

A son-in-law and nephew of ringleader Sam Mullet Sr. filed appeals Thursday with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Appeals by all 16 defendants are now before the court.

The defendants, all members of Mullet’s extended family, had challenged the constitutionality of the hate crimes act as overly broad. The trial judge in Cleveland rejected the claim.

They were convicted in five attacks in 2011 in retaliation against Amish who had defied or denounced Mullet’s authoritarian style.

Mullet was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Family members who carried out the attacks got sentences ranging from one to seven years.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Murder suspect caught in Hawaii after prison escape

Honolulu police say an inmate accused of killing a friend in a state park has been caught after eluding authorities nearly 12 hours during an escape attempt.

Police said Teddy Munet was arrested Wednesday night without incident by officers responding to an emergency call roughly one mile from where he escaped.

The arrest ends a daylong search for Munet touched off after authorities say he ran away from a loading area at Circuit Court wearing handcuffs and shackles around his waist.

Authorities say deputies transporting Munet from a nearby jail didn’t follow all proper procedures in transporting him.

He wasn’t shackled at his ankles and the van transporting him stopped in an unsecured area.

The director of the state Department of Public Safety says he plans a full review.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Court: Calif. may have to hire Wiccan chaplain

California prisons hire full-time chaplains and spiritual leaders to serve Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Protestant and Native American inmates.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court gave new life to a decades-long battle by Wiccan inmates for access to their own full-time chaplain.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a trial judge’s dismissal of a Wiccan prisoner lawsuit seeking the same rights as the five other religious practices. The appeals court said the Wiccan prisoners make a compelling argument that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation may be unconstitutionally showing preference to the five religions in violation of the 1st Amendment.

The appeals court ruled that the trial court judge was wrong to dismiss the case almost immediately after it was filed without delving deeper into the evidence. For instance, the court said it could be that a Wiccan chaplain could be needed only at the Chowchilla prison rather than throughout the 33-prison statewide system of 150,000 inmates.

The appeals court also warned that the CDCR may still be able to show that the Wiccans don’t have enough worshippers or critical needs for a full-time chaplain. It ordered the trial court judge to reconsider the case.

“There are certainly enough Wiccan prisoners to merit their own chaplain,” said Gary Friedman, a spokesman for the American Correctional Chaplains Association. “I hope this leads to the hiring of more chaplains to represent even more minority faith groups.”

The number of Wiccan inmates is in dispute. A CDCR survey reported 183 Wiccan prisoners in 2007 after recording about twice that number in 2002.

But Patrick McCollum, a leading Wiccan minister who has led the Wiccan prisoner fight for full-time chaplains for 20 years, puts the number at about 2,000 system wide. McCollum said many Wiccans prisoners were afraid to answer the CDCR survey for fear of reprisals. He also argued that a survey should be conducted by a neutral party with no ties to the CDCR.

McCollum, who volunteers as a Wiccan chaplain in California prisoners and who lost his own lawsuit against the CDCR in 2011, says he believes the CDCR opposes hiring a full-time chaplain because of a misunderstanding of the religion’s beliefs.

Wicca is a pagan religion that worships nature and involves witchcraft.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News