EAM63G2J3AJ3
Archives
Categories
Registration
Resources
Ga.’s system to defend the poor still reeling
Georgia's public defender system is still trying to recover its financial footing five years after a courthouse gunman racked up a $3 million taxpayer-funded defense tab on the way to his conviction.
The state's ailing system to defend the poor has struggled almost since its start in 2005, hamstrung not just by the costly Brian Nichols case but also because of the lukewarm support from legislators and a dismal economy.
The state now can't afford to pay to defend the accused in several capital punishment cases, leaving them waiting in jail for years before their trials start. Some, like Khan Dinh Phan, have appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court for help. They have asked that their cases be dismissed because the delays violated their right to a speedy trial.
Georgia has faced similar problems before. State legislators created the public defender system precisely because individual counties struggled to provide adequate legal defense for the poor. But prosecutors and defense attorneys say it may take drastic measures to recover from the Nichols' case, one of the statewide system's first high-profile tests.
Prosecutors said Nichols' defense should have cost about $500,000. But expenses ballooned with expert witnesses and attorneys fees. Nichols was spared death and sentenced to life in December 2008 for killing of a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent during the rampage.
Female teacher in teen sex case appears in court
A California middle school teacher who's reportedly wracked with guilt over an affair with a 14-year-old boy has been returned to jail following a brief court appearance.
Amy Victoria Beck had arrived in court with her lawyer on Wednesday for her arraignment, but it was postponed until March 25.
She is jailed in lieu of $175,000 bail. Her lawyer, Michael Williamson, says she wants to stay there for the time being to avoid the media.
Authorities say Beck arrived at Burbank police headquarters on Monday and said she was tormented with guilt.
Police say she confessed to having sex with one of her male students last year.
Prosecutors charged Beck with five counts, and she faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.
Pink Floyd win court battle against EMI over online sales
The surviving members of Pink Floyd have won their court case against record label EMI. As reported in Spinner, the prog supergroup where forced to take EMI to court over a dispute relating to download royalties and whether the label had the right or not to sell Pink Floyd's catalogue online as individual tracks and not complete albums.
In a landmark ruling, the court found in favour of Pink Floyd and ordered EMI to pay £40,000 ($60,000) in costs. The judge has yet to rule how much the beleaguered label is to pay in fines. In a further ruling, EMI has also been banned from selling Pink Floyd's music online.
The case came to court over a dispute about a clause in Pink Floyd's 1999 contract. Signed five years before the advent of legal downloads, EMI argued that clause allowed them to sell the band's music in any way that it saw fit. Pink Floyd's argument rested on the assertion that the clause -- "there are no rights to sell any or all of the records as single records other than with permission" -- included digital as well as physical formats.
Mass. court upholds state gun-lock requirement
The highest court in Massachusetts on Wednesday upheld the constitutionality of a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes in a ruling applauded by gun-control advocates.
The case had been closely watched by both gun-control and gun-rights proponents.
Massachusetts prosecutors argued that the law saves lives because it requires guns to be kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger lock when not under the owner's control. The Second Amendment Foundation Inc., however, cited a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said people have a constitutional right to keep weapons for self-defense.
The state Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in the case of a man charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle in his Billerica home, unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not overrule the state's right to require owners to store guns safely.
"We conclude that the legal obligation safely to secure firearms (in the Massachusetts law) is not unconstitutional ... and that the defendant may face prosecution on this count," Justice Ralph Gants wrote.
The case involved Richard Runyan, whose mentally disabled son allegedly shot at a neighbor with a BB gun. The 18-year-old showed police where his father kept other guns, and the father was charged with improperly storing a hunting rifle under his bed.
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, whose office prosecuted Runyan, praised the court's ruling.
Linkworthy (Tort “Reform” edition, and other stuff I like)
Former Clinton White House lawyer Lanny Davis weighs in on the issue of medical malpractice "reform" in a WSJ interview with Ashby Jones where he spends time whining about punitive damages.
And it's pretty clear to Andrew Barovick, that Lanny Davis is utterly clueless. And the PopTort noticed too, pointing out that the entire state system only had six such cases in an entire year. For medical malpractice, punitive damages is a non-issue;
Hey, Brian Wilson has a modest proposal, why not just get rid of all the personal injury lawsuits?
And if you're a personal injury lawyer, how do you feel about being one?
The NYT ran with an editorial on a case against McDonald's regarding fried chicken and a hot-pocket of undrained oil that burned the lips of a customer. The WSJ Law Blog wants to know if this is the next tort "reform" talking point;
Of course, some lawyers just seem hell-bent on embarrassing themselves;
And while on the subject of medical malpractice, here's the story of a rogue butt-enhancer. No, I didn't make that up;
Other interesting stuff:
FindLaw, that paragon of brilliant blogging that seeks to further embarrass the entire legal profession, is now looking for new writers for it's dreck-blogs. Legal experience is not necessary. Really, you can't make this stuff up;
And more in the crap attorney search department, Bob Ambogi rips BestAttorneysOnline.com to shreds then comes back to pulverize them some more, and then shovels dirt on this clueless company's grave. Woe unto the lawyer that outsources his or her marketing (and ethics) to one of these attorney search outfits;
Class action lawsuits against Toyota could cost the company $3 billion;
When 911 calls get released to the public, is there a violation of privacy rights involved?
Congressional candidate Joe Walsh backs down in dispute with rocker Joe Walsh over use of one of his (rocker Joe's) songs;
New York City gets a new official condom, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the law, but it's my blog and I get to link to stuff like that if I want;
My brother Dan is not the only one to get personal letters from SCOTUS; Justice Thomas opines on McDonald's;
I've been meaning to get around to this for awhile: In case you hadn't noticed, Colin Samuels of Infamy or Praise fame has been doing outstanding round-ups of the legal blogosphere in his "Round Tuit" postings. Unlike my brief commentary by providing links -- where I try to send you away from here -- he does in depth analysis of life in the legal blogosphere. If he isn't part of your RSS feed, then you are missing something good;
And Niki Black has Blawg Review #254 up at Sui Generis, focusing on International Women's Day and National Women's Month.
Report: Medical Malpractice Payments Hit New Low
The tort "reformers" won't be happy with this; yet more evidence that medical malpractice lawsuits are not the problem with healthcare costs.
OK, here you go, short and sweet, the lede:
Fewer medical malpractice payments were made on behalf of doctors in 2009 than any year on record, according to the National Practitioner Data Bank.Also part of the article, malpractice payments on behalf of doctors equals just 0.14 of 1% of overall US healthcare spending.
This finding contradicts claims that medical malpractice litigation is to blame for rising healthcare costs and that changing the liability system to the detriment of patients will not curb costs.
The value of malpractice payments was also the lowest since 1999. Adjusted for inflation, payments were at their lowest since 1992, a Public Citizen analysis of the NPDB shows.
And for that, there are people who want to close the courthouse doors.
You can read the rest here: Analysis: Medical malpractice payments continue to fall.
--------------------
And prior commentary from me here:
- The False Premises of Medical Malpractice "Reform" (Response to Richard Epstein in WSJ) (6/30/09)
There's an old saying, "garbage in, garbage out." If you use a false premise to substantiate an argument then the result will be worthless. And that is exactly what University of Chicago law professor Richard A. Epstein does today in the Wall Street Journal (via PofL)...
- Do Texas Med-Mal Damage Caps Work? (What Do You Mean By "Work?") (4/14/09)
But what, exactly does it mean for a statute to "work" when it reduces the ability of the most badly injured individuals to recover for their loss?
Does offering government protectionism for tortfeasors mean it works?
Does stopping those who've been victimized from recovering from their loss mean it works?
Does destroying the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions mean it works? - My Tort "Reform" Op-Ed in Today's Journal News (7/29/08)
Re "Tort reform needed in New York state," a July 23 letter by Cortes E. DeRussy of Bronxville that blamed the "trial-bar friendly state Legislature" for refusing to enact malpractice reforms needed to keep doctors from fleeing the state:
The DeRussy letter repeated a common myth in an argument for tort "reform," claiming that one of the primary reasons for increased medical malpractice insurance was "unusually high judgments." DeRussy couldn't be more wrong... - The Medical Malpractice "Crisis" Hoax -- From Public Citizen (1/24/07)
Since others had already pointed out the Public Citizen report exposing the hoax of a medical malpractice "crisis" I wasn't going to bother. But there was Pres. Bush last night at his State of the Union speech once again leading people astray, when he said:
"And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, by passing medical liability reform."
Good doctors, however, don't seem to be the problem. Since 1991, according to the report, 5.9 percent of U.S. doctors were responsible for 57.8 percent of the number of medical malpractice payments. That is an extraordinary statistic. - Debunking Yet Another Tort "Reform" Column, This Time in Forbes (7/15/09)
I feel like a broken record sometimes, rebutting the same disingenuous tort "reform" nonsense over and over. The latest comes from Forbes (via PofL), in a piece written by Manhattan Institute fellow John Avlon, regarding the amount that New York City pays out in settlements and verdicts....
- Why New York Medical Malpractice Insurance Jumped 14% (7/31/07)
You may have seen the screaming New York headlines: Doctors hit with 14% increase in medical malpractice rates! Doctors in high risk specialties paying 6-figure insurance premiums! Insurance reserves so low carriers may become insolvent! Blame the lawyers! came the cry from the doctor's, for surely it must be due to medical malpractice cases. A little protectionism called tort "reform" would go a long way to curing the problem. Right?
Ahh, but truth is another matter...
Pratt & Whitney to move quickly on court appeal
Pratt & Whitney said Tuesday a federal appeals court granted the jet engine maker's request for an expedited appeal of a lawsuit it lost as it tries to move 1,000 jobs out of Connecticut.
The subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. filed five proposed issues in its appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a Feb. 5 decision halting its plans to move engine repair jobs to Columbus, Ga., Japan and Singapore.
U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport ruled in favor of the Machinists union, which sued Pratt & Whitney to halt efforts to shift the jobs. The union said the company violated its contract with the union that requires it to make every effort to preserve jobs in Connecticut.
Among the issues Pratt & Whitney said it may raise is its contention that Hall was wrong in how she interpreted the definition of "every reasonable effort" to preserve jobs. Pratt & Whitney said it is not required to save jobs if it results in lower profit.
The company also said Hall substituted her own judgment for Pratt & Whitney's business judgment in how it measures profit and financial performance.
In a request filed last week, Pratt & Whitney said a decision is needed soon to avoid financial harm because the company plans to shut two Connecticut plants immediately after its union contract expires in December.
The court said the two parties may file legal papers in April and May and an appeal may be heard as early as the week of May 31.
A lawyer for the union would not immediately comment. The union's chief negotiator did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Goldman Sachs group to appeal Shaw-Canwest deal
Goldman Sachs Group Inc will ask a Canadian court on Wednesday to hear its appeal of a lower court decision allowing Shaw Communications Inc to buy the broadcast arm of bankrupt Canwest Global Communications Corp.
An Ontario Superior Court judge ruled on Feb. 19 that Shaw could acquire Canwest's television arm, putting a quick end to a last-minute bid for the assets, filed the night before by a consortium led by private equity fund Catalyst Capital and backed by Goldman.
The Catalyst consortium includes the Asper family, Canwest's founders. Leonard Asper was chief executive of Winnipeg, Manitoba-based Canwest, Canada's largest media group, until last Thursday when he stepped down to avoid potential conflict of interest concerns.
Goldman Sachs is a partner in Canwest's specialty TV arm after helping the media group acquire popular channels such as History Television and Food Network Canada from Alliance Atlantis in 2007 for C$2.3 billion.
It wants the Ontario Court of Appeal to set aside the deal that allows cable operator Shaw to buy the Canwest TV assets.
Chief justice unsettled by Obama’s criticism of Supreme Court
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally."
Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question about the Senate's method of confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly try to make political points by asking questions they know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics rules.
"I think the process is broken down," he said.
Obama chided the court for its campaign finance decision during the January address, with six of the court's nine justices seated before him in their black robes.
Roberts said he wonders whether justices should attend the address.
"To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Roberts said anyone is free to criticize the court and that some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."
Breaking from tradition, Obama used the speech to criticize the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
Comments: 0