Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Finds Flaws in New York City’s Cannabis Enforcement Efforts

      by

      The city has appealed the judge’s ruling in favor of a convenience store in Queens that could have broader implications for enforcement.A state judge has ordered New York City to allow a convenience store in Queens to reopen after it was accused of selling cannabis illegally, a decision that could significantly affect the city’s effort to wipe out thousands of unlicensed sellers.The city quickly appealed the ruling issued Wednesday by Justice Kevin J. Kerrigan. He found that the city sheriff’s office had no legal reason to keep the store at 35-12 Bell Boulevard padlocked because the underlying summons had been dismissed after the city could not prove it had delivered it to the right person. The sheriff’s office issued the summons during an inspection in June, charging the store with selling cannabis without a license.After the summons was dismissed on procedural grounds, that should have been the end to the case, Justice Kerrigan wrote in his decision.Instead, the hearing officer, a lawyer who assumes the role of a judge in the case, went on to recommend that the sheriff’s office keep the business closed because she believed illegal activity was taking place at the store. She also concluded that she did not need to determine whether the illegal activity was more than minimal in making her recommendation, he said.The sheriff’s office accepted the hearing officer’s recommendations. The hearing officer’s guidance was wrong, Justice Kerrigan ruled.The series of decisions, he wrote, resulted in “a clear violation of due process under the 1aw.”“The court acknowledges that the unlicensed sale of cannabis within the City of New York represents an enormous public health concern,” he added. “However, summarily shuttering businesses prior to taking the necessary steps to determine whether a violation has occurred stands against the cornerstone of American democracy and procedural due process.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ACLU Must Reinstate Employee Falsely Accused of Racist Language, Court Rules

      by

      The case put the legal group on the spot for taking positions on free speech and workers’ rights that seemed at odds with its mission.The American Civil Liberties Union lost a case about offensive speech and workers’ rights — over its own workplace.A judge ruled on Wednesday that the A.C.L.U. had illegally fired an employee, Kate Oh, from her job as senior policy counsel. The group had accused her of using language that was racist and that singled out people of color in the office.Michael A. Rosas, an administrative law judge, said that the A.C.L.U.’s accusation that she had targeted people of color “is not borne out by the facts.” He noted that her complaints were not about colleagues but superiors within the organization, and that she had also complained about white managers.Ms. Oh never uttered a racial slur or invoked race, court filings showed. She said that she considered herself a whistle-blower and advocate for other women in the office, drawing attention to an environment she said was rife with sexism and fear. Her frequent, sometimes intemperate, complaints irritated her bosses, she argued, so they retaliated by firing her.The case placed one of the nation’s leading defenders of workers’ rights under scrutiny for violating the very workplace protections it typically seeks to enforce.The judge ordered the A.C.L.U. to reinstate Ms. Oh, who was fired in May 2022, and to give her back pay.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyer Who Tried to Set Off Bomb Outside of Chinese Embassy Pleads Guilty

      by

      Christopher Rodriguez tried to detonate a bag of explosives at the embassy in Washington, D.C., by firing a rifle at it but missed, prosecutors said.A Florida lawyer pleaded guilty on Friday to placing a bag of explosives near the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and trying to detonate it with a rifle, according to court records.This was not the first time the lawyer, Christopher Rodriguez, had attempted a detonation, prosecutors said. He had previously set off explosives in 2022 that caused “significant damage” to a statue of the Communist leaders Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong in San Antonio, Texas, by shooting at canisters of explosives with a rifle, according to court records.But when Mr. Rodriguez, 45, of Panama City, Fla., employed a similar tactic by shooting at a 15-pound backpack of explosives that he dropped near the fence of the Chinese Embassy on Sept. 25, 2023, he missed, and the explosives did not detonate, according to court records.Federal authorities say a Florida lawyer tried to detonate a backpack with explosives outside the Chinese Embassy in Washington in September.U.S. District Court for the District of ColumbiaMr. Rodriguez pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to damaging property occupied by a foreign government, using explosive materials to cause malicious damage to federal property, and receipt or possession of an unregistered firearm.The charges cover his attack on the statue in San Antonio and his attempt to damage the Chinese Embassy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Man Who Killed 4 After Dispute Over Stimulus Check Gets 145 Years in Prison

      by

      Malik Halfacre, 28, wounded his girlfriend and killed four of her family members in Indianapolis in 2021 after a dispute with her over money, prosecutors said.An Indianapolis man who killed four people, including a child, after a dispute with his girlfriend over a coronavirus stimulus check was sentenced on Friday to 145 years in prison.The man, Malik Halfacre, 28, pleaded guilty in June to four murder counts in the March 2021 shooting deaths of Eve Moore, 7; Dequan Moore, 23; Anthony Johnson, 35; and Tomeeka Brown, 44, in Indianapolis. He also pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Jeanettrius Moore, then his girlfriend, whom the police say Mr. Halfacre shot multiple times. The four people killed were relatives of Ms. Moore.Judge Jeffrey Marchal of Marion Superior Court sentenced Mr. Halfacre to two consecutive 57-year prison terms for the murder counts and a 31-year prison term for the attempted murder count, according to court records.On the night of March 13, 2021, the police received a report of a person shot inside an Indianapolis home.Malik Halfacre.Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, via Associated PressThe victim was Ms. Moore, who had fled to a neighbor’s home after being shot. Before she was taken to a hospital, Ms. Moore told the police that there were multiple victims inside her home. She told them that Mr. Halfacre had fled and taken their 6-month-old daughter.The police eventually found the young girl at Mr. Halfacre’s sister’s home. They caught Mr. Halfacre the next day after an hourslong standoff at a friend’s home, where he was hiding.Mr. Halfacre later told investigators that he and Ms. Moore had been arguing because he “wanted some of her stimulus check,” according to a probable cause affidavit.Mr. Halfacre also admitted that he had shot everyone in his girlfriend’s home and then stole her purse and fled in her car with their daughter, the affidavit said. He told the police that he had dropped their daughter off at his sister’s house.As part of the deal under which Mr. Halfacre pleaded guilty, related charges of armed robbery, auto theft and illegal possession of a handgun were dropped. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Passenger Who Tried to Open Cockpit Gets 19 Months in Prison

      by

      Juan Rivas, who threatened flight attendants with a champagne bottle and a plastic knife, tried to open an exit door of an American Airlines plane, prosecutors said.A California man who tried to intimidate flight attendants on an American Airlines flight using plastic silverware from a service cart and a glass champagne bottle, and then tried unsuccessfully to open an exit door and the cockpit, was sentenced on Wednesday to 19 months in prison.The man, Juan Remberto Rivas, 52, was arrested and charged with interfering with flight crew members on Feb. 13, 2022, after a flight from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri.During the flight, Mr. Rivas, who, according to court records, admitted to using methamphetamines before the flight, began to panic and told flight attendants that the plane was not moving and that his family was in danger, court records said.His behavior led to a physical struggle that forced the plane to make an emergency landing in Kansas City, Mo.Mr. Rivas, who pleaded guilty in January, had faced a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison but prosecutors sought a sentence of 41 to 51 months despite him threatening to “bring down the plane,” court records and the attorney’s office said.“The government believes that the defendant’s actions were reckless because of his use of methamphetamine, rather than an intentional effort to bring down the aircraft,” the prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul S. Becker, argued in a sentencing memorandum.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Further Narrows Voting Rights Act’s Scope

      by

      Reversing decades of precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in a Texas case that different minority groups cannot jointly claim that their votes have been diluted.A federal appeals court further narrowed the scope of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ruling that members of separate minority groups cannot join together to claim that a political map has been drawn to dilute their voting power.The 12-to-6 ruling on Thursday by the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned almost four decades of legal precedent, as well as an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the same appeals court. It applies only in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the three states where the court has jurisdiction, but the decision has national implications and may be appealed to the Supreme Court.The case involved districts for county commissioners in Galveston County, Texas, a community of about 350,000 people, where the last round of redistricting redrew a district in which Black and Hispanic voters together made up a majority of voters. The redrawn boundaries reduced their combined share of the district’s electorate to 38 percent, and a lawsuit claimed that doing so violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits drawing maps that dilute minority voting power.A lower court and the three-judge appellate panel both ruled that the new map was a clear violation of the law. But the full Fifth Circuit disagreed, saying that the law does not explicitly allow voters from more than one minority group to “combine forces” to claim their votes were diluted.The 12 judges in the majority were all appointed by Republican presidents. Five of the six dissenters were named by Democratic presidents. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      N.F.L. Sunday Ticket Verdict Is Thrown Out by Judge

      by

      The decision, five weeks after a jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages in an antitrust case, is a reprieve for the league.The $4.7 billion verdict against the National Football League for colluding to raise prices for its Sunday Ticket television package was overturned late Thursday by a federal judge, who disqualified expert testimony used by the jury to determine damages.The judge, Philip Gutierrez of U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, ruled a day after lawyers for the N.F.L. had asked him to exclude testimony from key witnesses for plaintiffs representing thousands of customers who bought Sunday Ticket, a season-long package that showed all out-of-town games and was sold by DirecTV.The jury’s verdict five weeks ago in favor of those plaintiffs threatened to upend the league’s strategy of selling exclusive television packages to broadcasters.In his 16-page decision, Judge Gutierrez said the plaintiffs’ two economic witnesses had used flawed methodology in their attempts to show that the league overcharged Sunday Ticket customers. The jury’s calculations of damages were thrown out because they were based on the witnesses’ testimony, which included comparisons to how college games are broadcast and unsubstantiated speculation on how the N.F.L. might sell games individually, the judge said.“The court finds that the jury’s damages awards were not based on the ‘evidence and reasonable inferences’ but instead were more akin to ‘guesswork or speculation,’” he wrote.Judge Gutierrez also said the jury had not followed his instructions for calculating damages, which in antitrust cases like this one are tripled and would have led to a $14.1 billion verdict against the league.“We are grateful for today’s ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit,” the league said in a statement. “We believe that the N.F.L.’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television.”Calls and text messages to Bill Carmody, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, were not immediately returned.Before the judge’s decision, the N.F.L. said it was prepared to appeal the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs can potentially appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The monthlong trial featured testimony from the N.F.L.’s commissioner, Roger Goodell; Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys; and Sean McManus, who recently retired as the chairman of CBS Sports.Last season, the N.F.L. ended its relationship with DirecTV and sold the rights to the Sunday Ticket package to YouTube for as much as $2.5 billion annually. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More