Judge says NYT reporter must testify, limits scope (AP)

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A federal judge ruled Friday that a New York Times reporter must testify at the trial of a former CIA officer charged with leaking classified information about Iran, but limited the scope of what the journalist could be asked about.

Prosecutors have subpoenaed Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter James Risen to testify at the September trial of Jeffrey Sterling, an ex-CIA officer from Missouri. Risen's lawyers had argued that the First Amendment should shield him from having to testify about his sources.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said Risen must testify at the trial. But she ruled that his testimony be limited to four topics.

Those topics are that he wrote an article or book chapter; that they are accurate; that statements referred to in Risen's newspaper article or book chapter as being made by an unnamed source were in fact made to Risen by an unnamed source; and that statements referred to as being made by an identified source were in fact made by that identified source.

The government alleges Sterling was a key source for a chapter in Risen's 2006 book "State of War," which details a botched CIA effort during the Clinton administration, dubbed Operation Merlin, to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions by secretly giving the Iranians intentionally flawed blueprints through a Russian intermediary.

"This is an important victory for the First Amendment and investigative reporters everywhere," Risen's lawyer Joel Kurtzberg said Friday evening, referring to the limits on what Risen can be asked to testify about.

Last year, Brinkema quashed a similar subpoena issued to Risen when the case was in front of a grand jury. She ruled that the government simply didn't need Risen's testimony to obtain an indictment in light of other evidence possessed by the government, including phone records showing multiple calls between Risen and Sterling.

Prosecutors had argued that Risen's First Amendment rights paled in comparison to the government's need to prosecute criminals and obtain evidence to which juries are rightfully entitled.

A spokesman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

View the original article here

Judge backs Lopez over home video row with ex (AFP)

LOS ANGELES (AFP) – A US appeal court sided with superstar Jennifer Lopez in a privacy dispute with her ex-husband over the use of the former couple's home videos.

The singer and actress, who annnounced last week that she was splitting from actor husband Marc Anthony, is seeking $10 million from her ex, Ojani Noa, and writer Ed Meyer.

Lopez says the video footage, which is not of a sexual nature, contains private information about her and her relationship with Noa, whom she married in 1997 but divorced 11 months later.

The 42-year-old, who originally sued Noa and Meyer in November 2009, alleges that the pair plan to make a movie she says is to be called "How I Married Jennifer Lopez: The J. Lo and Ojani Noa Story."

Noa and Meyer deny they are planning a tell-all movie and say it would not have the title stated in the lawsuit.

On Friday, a three-justice panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, reversing a lower court's ruling, said Lopez can force Noa and Meyer to resolve the case by arbitration.

The lawsuit was the second Lopez filed against Noa after their divorce: in 2007 she won $545,000 and legal costs for breach of contract over a planned ghostwritten tell-all book.

The book, which was blocked from being published, reportedly recounted how Lopez had had multiple affairs, including with her current husband Marc Anthony whom she is now leaving after seven years of marriage.

View the original article here

Judge nixes Winklevoss twin's Facebook lawsuit (AFP)

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – A US judge on Friday blocked the latest courtroom campaign by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss to undo a deal they made to settle a squabble over who came up with the idea for Facebook.

US District Judge Douglas Woodlock in Boston granted a request by Facebook that the case there be dismissed. The judge's terse written order did not outline the reasoning behind his decision.

The twin brothers and fellow ConnectU founder Divya Narendra last month ramped up litigation in Massachusetts accusing Facebook of duping them in a deal they made in a lawsuit charging that Mark Zuckerberg stole their idea.

Lawyers for the Winklevosses tried to renew the languishing civil case in Boston after similarly-themed litigation failed in California and they opted not to appeal it to the Supreme Court.

"These are old and baseless allegations that have been considered and rejected previously by the courts," Facebook attorney Neel Chatterjee said when the litigation in Boston was revived.

The Winklevoss lawyers were expected to ask that the Boston case be reopened on the basis of a rule allowing that to happen if key information has been withheld.

The twins have argued that Facebook held back information about the California-based social networking firm while reaching a $65 million settlement with the brothers.

The twins inked a settlement two years ago that got them $20 million in cash and $45 million worth of stock valued at $36 per share.

The value of that yet-to-be-issued stock has skyrocketed along with Facebook's estimated market value.

The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in May rejected a bid by the identical twin brothers to have a full panel of 11 judges second guess a ruling made by a three-justice panel.

The three-judge panel said that litigation in the case "must come to an end" and threw out the bid by the Winklevosses to review the settlement.

View the original article here

Federal judge in Virginia tosses death sentence (AP)

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a drug dealer's murder-for-hire conviction and death sentence in the 2001 slaying of his marijuana supplier in a case that exposed a distribution ring in the wealthy northern Virginia suburbs.

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson of Norfolk ruled that Justin Michael Wolfe, 29, was wrongfully convicted in the death of 21-year-old Daniel Petrole Jr. in Prince William County. Wolfe claimed that the shooter, Owen Barber IV, acted alone.

Barber was the key prosecution witness in Wolfe's 2002 trial. Barber agreed to plead guilty to first-degree murder and testify against Wolfe in exchange for a life sentence.

Barber recanted his testimony in 2005. Five months later, he again changed his story and said he had testified truthfully at Wolfe's trial. Barber's former roommate and his former cellmate also filed sworn statements saying Barber told them he acted alone in killing Petrole.

Jackson said in his ruling that the state's use of Barber's false testimony was grounds for vacating Wolfe's conviction and sentence. He rejected prosecutors' claims that they did not know Barber's testimony was false at the time.

"They had prior knowledge of falsities in Barber's testimony, yet never pursued or investigated the information," Jackson wrote. "In light of the Commonwealth's conduct, the Commonwealth cannot be entitled to benefit from their deliberate ignorance and/or reckless disregard for the falsities in Barber's testimony."

He also ruled that Wolfe's due process rights were violated when prosecutors withheld information from his attorneys. Jackson listed several pieces of evidence that were suppressed, including recorded witness interviews and a "gentlemen's agreement" not to prosecute one witness in exchange for his cooperation with authorities.

The judge wrote that the actions of Prince William prosecutors were "not only unconstitutional in regards to due process, but abhorrent to the judicial process."

The Virginia attorney general's office could appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The office did not respond to an inquiry about its plans.

"We're gratified by the district court's thorough and thoughtful opinion," said Brian Meiners, an attorney for Wolfe in Washington, D.C. "We're hopeful the state will accept this determination and move on."

Meiners said attorneys informed Wolfe about the ruling.

"He was very happy and is naturally curious as to what is going to happen next with this case," Meiners said.

Wolfe's mother, Terri Steinberg, said in a telephone interview that she found it frightening that an appeal by the state could drag the case out for several more years.

"We can't really enjoy this until we know for sure that it's over," she said. "Today, we're just trying to enjoy the victory and be glad that somebody finally listened."

According to trial testimony, Wolfe was making $10,000 to $15,000 a month selling high-end marijuana he bought from Petrole. Wolfe had been friends since high school with Barber, who sold lower-grade marijuana.

At the time of Petrole's death, Wolfe owed Petrole about $60,000.

On March 15, 2001, after Petrole delivered the pot to Wolfe, Barber followed Petrole to his home and shot him 10 times as he sat in his car. Barber testified that in exchange for the slaying, Wolfe forgave a $3,000 debt, gave him more than five pounds of marijuana and promised an additional $10,000.

In his affidavit recanting the testimony, Barber said he had intended to confront Petrole but thought he saw him reach for a gun, so he fired. He said he implicated Wolfe to avoid the death penalty.

___

Associated Press writer Dena Potter contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Judge orders man held over girl's 1957 disappearance (Reuters)

SEATTLE (Reuters) – A judge ordered a Seattle man now in a local hospital held without bond on Saturday after his arrest in connection with the disappearance and death of a 7-year-old girl from a town in Illinois 54 years ago.

At a brief hearing, King County District Court Judge Eileen Kato said she found "probable cause" to detain Jack Daniel McCullough, now 71, and set a bail hearing for Monday.

The judge said McCullough, a former police officer who did not attend the hearing, was at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. His illness was not disclosed.

McCullough was arrested in Seattle in connection with the disappearance of Maria Ridulph, who was last seen playing with a friend near their homes in Sycamore, Illinois on December 3, 1957, according to a statement of probable cause posted on the Seattle Times website.

Her decomposed body was found on April 26, 1958, in Jo Daviess County, Illinois.

McCullough was a teenager at the time of the disappearance and had been a suspect in the crime, but had an alibi and was never charged. McCullough has also used the name John Tessier.

According to the probable cause statement, Ridulph's playmate at the time of her disappearance reported that a man named "Johnny" had approached the girls as they were playing and asked if they wanted piggyback rides.

Later, the friend went home to get her mittens. When she came back, Ridulph and the man were both gone, the statement said. It added that investigators tracked down Ridulph's friend last year, and she picked McCullough's photo out of a montage.

"To the best of my memory and recollection of that night, that's him," the statement quotes Cathy Sigman, in her sixties, as saying.

MCCULLOUGH HAD ALIBI

McCullough always insisted that he had been on a train from Rockford to Chicago and could not have abducted Ridulph.

But a former girlfriend told authorities last year she had seen the train ticket and it was not used. The tip prompted police to continue the investigation, which led them to McCullough, the Chicago Tribune said.

The probable cause statement said McCullough joined the Air Force shortly after the disappearance, and then served in the Army at Fort Lewis.

McCullough later worked for the Lacy and Milton police departments in Washington state, the statement said. It added he was fired from the police after pleading guilty to an unlawful communication charge following accusations he had sex with a 13- or 14-year-old runaway girl in 1983.

Four family members of McCullough, including two stepdaughters whose names were not available, niece Jennifer Howton and another niece also not named, each casually dressed, attended the hearing on Saturday. They did not speak in court although one did briefly speak with a television journalist.

Outside the courtroom, a man who had accompanied the family in court and identified himself as a boyfriend of one of the stepdaughters told reporters that McCullough had triple bypass surgery a few years ago.

"He's looking at losing everything," the man said, adding that he did not think police had the evidence to convict him. McCullough was arrested on Wednesday afternoon and booked into King County jail early on Thursday, he said.

The state of Illinois was seeking a $3 million bond although McCullough was currently being held as a fugitive on a "no bail hold," Denny Behrend, the Seattle bail bondsman, told Reuters.

McCullough has been married for about 20 years and has three grandchildren, the family friend said. More recently, he worked as a night security guard at a Seattle area retirement complex, he said.

The family friend said he thought the person who tipped off police to McCullough "is an estranged wife who hates his guts. It's someone he's had a relationship with for a long time."

It is unusual for a case so old to be revived, especially without evidence such as DNA uncovered through forensic techniques not available a half century ago.

(Editing by Greg McCune and Cynthia Johnston)

View the original article here

Courthouse named for judge killed in Tucson attack (AP)

YUMA, Ariz. – A new federal courthouse under construction in Yuma is being named after a judge killed in the Tucson mass shooting.

A groundbreaking ceremony for the John M. Roll United States Courthouse was held Thursday afternoon in Yuma.

Work on the courthouse is expected to be completed in spring 2013.

The new complex will house two magistrate courtrooms, judges' chambers, jury facilities, U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, District and Bankruptcy Court Services and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Among the speakers at Thursday's ceremony was Ron Barber, who was wounded in the Jan. 8 shooting and was Roll's college buddy.

Barber recalled that he was standing next to Roll and talking to him when the gunfire broke out.

Barber said Roll pushed him to the ground and "may well have given his life to save mine."

Police say surveillance video of the shooting shows Roll pushing Barber to the ground, helping him crawl under a table and lying on top of him.

Roll, 63, was fatally shot in the back. Five others were killed that day and 13 people were wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Barber, 65, was shot twice — once in the left cheek and once in the left thigh. He was hospitalized for six days and still is undergoing physical therapy.

Barber plans to return to work July 5 on a part-time basis as he continues to rehab. He's district director for Giffords and supervises 11 employees in the congresswoman's offices in Tucson and Sierra Vista.

Just days before his death, the Yuma Sun said Roll had signed off on the design of the 56,800-square-foot federal courthouse — a project he had considered his top priority over the past few years to make a reality.

"He was the real deal," Barber said of Roll. "This courthouse will help us remember that."

View the original article here

Judge orders ex-ESPN commentator to stand trial (AP)

LOS ANGELES – Former ESPN commentator Jay Mariotti must stand trial on charges he stalked, injured and assaulted his ex-girlfriend, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark Windham found there to be sufficient evidence for Mariotti to stand to trial on one felony count each of stalking, corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. He also faces two misdemeanor counts of disobeying a domestic court order.

Prosecutors say Mariotti confronted the woman at a restaurant Sept. 30, the same day he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery count stemming from an August incident with her.

In that plea, he was sentenced to 36 months of probation, community service and a domestic violence course.

Mariotti, a former Chicago Sun-Times columnist, is also accused of grabbing his former girlfriend outside a Venice restaurant on April 15. He allegedly pulled a chunk of her hair out and took her cell phone from her while shouting at her.

Mariotti's lawyer, Shawn Holley, called the allegations meritless.

"We look forward to trial when we will have the opportunity to present a strong and vigorous defense," Holley said in a statement.

View the original article here

Judge blocks testimony from Casey Anthony fianc� (Reuters)

ORLANDO, Fla (Reuters) – The former fiancA© of accused child killer Casey Anthony testified on Tuesday that she claimed she once woke up to find her older brother standing over her, staring at her while she slept.

Judge Belvin Perry called Jesse Grund's testimony impermissible hearsay evidence, and said he won't allow the jury to hear it unless defense lawyers persuade him otherwise with sufficient legal arguments.

Grund said Casey told him about her experience with her brother after Grund asked her why she didn't want her daughter Caylee to be around Lee Anthony.

Prosecutors say Casey, 25, smothered 2-year-old Caylee on June 16, 2008 so that she could "live the good life" free of the demands of motherhood. They say Casey stored the child's body in her car trunk, then dumped it in woods near her home.

Defense attorney Jose Baez told jurors in his opening statement that Caylee accidentally drowned in the Florida family's backyard pool, and the death went unreported.

Baez said Casey was sexually abused, and that explained why she partied and seemed inappropriately carefree after her daughter's death.

But Baez has yet to produce evidence of the alleged abuse during Casey's murder trial, now in its sixth week.

Casey's father, George Anthony, has denied molesting her. Earlier this month, Perry scolded Baez when he asked a witness whether Lee could be Caylee's father.

Much of the testimony on Tuesday came from Roy Kronk, the water department meter reader who discovered Caylee's remains in a swampy part of a wooded area near the Anthony home in the Orlando area.

Kronk said he called the sheriff's department three times in August 2008 to report he found what looked like a small skull.

At the time, a nationwide search was underway to find Caylee, who Casey claimed was kidnapped by a nanny. Special phone lines were created to handle the thousands of tips and leads sent to authorities.

But detectives were zeroing in on Casey, who they knew had lied extensively about Caylee's disappearance.

Kronk said no one took him seriously until December 11, 2008, when he stopped at the location again and verified the object was in fact a skull. His supervisor alerted authorities, who arrived at the site and found Caylee's remains.

MAJOR DISCOVERY

Kronk is a key witness for the defense. Baez has insinuated that Kronk played some sort of role in the disposal of Caylee's body. The lawyer told jurors Kronk had sole "control" of Caylee's remains during the intervening four months and claimed he was motivated by a $225,000 reward.

However, the reward money was offered to anyone who found Caylee alive.

"I just simply tried to do the right thing," said Kronk, who noted he received $5,000 from the crime tip line.

Kronk testified he first spotted what looked like a skull on August 11, 2008 while taking a break with two co-workers, and called a crime tip line later that night to report the object.

Kronk said he called the Orange County Sheriff's Office again on the evening of August 12 and the morning of August 13 before finally getting deputies to meet him at the location.

Two deputies came but neither went into the woods nor asked him to show them the skull-like object, Kronk said.

One deputy walked as far as a flooded area, quickly looked from side to side, slipped on mud on his way back to the roadside, and then berated Kronk for 30 minutes for wasting his time, the meter reader testified.

Kronk's co-worker, David Dean, confirmed Kronk's account of discovering the skull. Within a few weeks, Dean testified, a tropical storm deluged the area with rain.

Prosecutors have suggested one reason no one saw the remains during subsequent searches in the area was because it was under water.

George Anthony took the stand briefly again on Tuesday, denying assertions by Baez that he had an affair with search volunteer Krystal Holloway. George testified he only went to Holloway's condominium to comfort her after learning she had cancer.

"I never had a romantic affair," George said.

He denied ever telling Holloway that "Caylee's death was an accident that snowballed out of control." He also said he never told her that he grabbed Casey by the throat, threw her against a wall and demanded Casey tell him where Caylee was.

"She (Holloway) is not a good person," George testified.

(Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Jerry Norton)

View the original article here

Judge rules Casey Anthony competent to stand trial (Reuters)

ORLANDO, Fla (Reuters) – Week six of the Casey Anthony murder trial opened with talk of a psychic, a Velveeta cheese wrapper and the revelation an emergency mental evaluation of the young Florida mother was behind the abrupt cancellation of Saturday's court session.

Judge Belvin Perry ruled on Monday that 25-year-old Casey was competent to assist in her defense based on evaluations over the weekend by three court-appointed psychologists.

In his emergency motion for the mental health checks, defense attorney Jose Baez wrote that he based the request on unspecified "confidential communications" with Casey.

Perry sealed the psychologists' reports and ordered the trial to resume.

Prosecutors say Casey smothered her 2-year-old daughter Caylee with duct tape on June 16, 2008, drove around with the child's body in her car trunk for several days and dumped the remains in woods near their Orlando area home.

Evidence showed Casey spent the following month happily partying with her boyfriend.

Baez contends Caylee accidentally drowned in the Anthonys' backyard pool, and that Casey's inappropriate reaction stemmed from a history of sexual abuse.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Perry has yet to rule on a motion filed by the defense team on Monday asking the judge to declare a mistrial and start over with a jury that was not selected based on its willingness to impose the death penalty.

Defense attorney Ann Finnell argued that a federal court in Miami recently declared the state's death penalty unconstitutional on technical grounds. The ruling does not invalidate the statute.

Finnell said Casey's defense team challenged Florida's death penalty before the trial began on the same grounds cited by the federal court, but Perry denied the motion. Finnell is asking Perry to reconsider.

BODY VAPORS

Baez on Monday called a biochemist to the witness stand to rebut key prosecution evidence that chemical vapors from Casey's car trunk could be the result of Caylee's body decomposing there for several days.

Kenneth Furton, a professor at Florida International University, testified that the science behind the chemical analysis is not yet fully developed or reliable.

Both Furton and the prosecution witness said this was the first time either had provided evidence in court on the science of chemical vapors given off by a decomposing body.

Furton testified that scientists around the world disagree on whether it is possible to identify human remains from chemical signatures.

"There is no instrumental method that's been scientifically validated" to identify a human body from chemical compounds, Furton said.

During cross examination, Furton agreed that a decomposing human body could cause the chemical signatures found in Casey's car trunk, but insisted garbage also was a possibility.

Prosecutor Jeff Ashton pressed Furton to identify anything else found in the trunk that could give off the same vapors and overpowering odor described by numerous witnesses.

Ashton held up the contents of a trash bag found in the trunk, including an empty salami package. He gave the jury an empty Velveeta cheese foil wrapper to pass around and make their own judgments.

The food containers "would be unlikely to produce a substantial odor," Furton conceded.

The defense spent more than three hours questioning two witnesses who followed a psychic's instructions to look for Caylee in the woods where her remains ultimately were found on December 11, 2008.

Jurors saw a videotape of private investigator Dominic Casey walking around in the woods in November 2008 while talking on a cell phone to the psychic. Both he and a helper, James Hoover, testified they did not find a body.

Perry extended the court session on Monday until after 7 p.m., almost two and a half hours later than normal. Even after losing more than five hours of court time due to the quick end of Saturday's session, Perry indicated he still expects the defense to wrap up its case by Wednesday.

If the projection sticks, the judge hopes to give the case to the jury by Saturday morning at the latest to begin deliberations.

(Editing by Colleen Jenkins and Jerry Norton)

View the original article here

Judge orders Lindsay Lohan back to court (Reuters)

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Actress Lindsay Lohan, currently serving a home detention sentence, was ordered on Wednesday back to court on an allegation she violated her probation in a drunken driving case, a court official said.

The 24 year-old actress -- who is confined to her home on a separate sentence for stealing a necklace earlier this year -- is due in court on Thursday morning in Los Angeles, said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the L.A. District Attorney's Office.

Gibbons said she did not know how Lohan allegedly violated her probation. But entertainment website Radar Online cited unnamed sources as saying Lohan tested positive for alcohol, which would violate her probation in the drunken driving case.

Lohan has been dogged by the 2007 drunk driving case for years and has served several stints in rehab and jail for violating her probation. A judge last year ordered Lohan to court for missing alcohol education classes, and she later went to a rehab center in southern California.

She was released from that facility in January and then landed in trouble, again, for stealing the necklace from a Los Angeles-area jewelry store.

Lohan was once considered one of Hollywood's most promising actresses, but her career has fallen on hard times due to her personal and legal troubles.

(Reporting by Alex Dobuzinskis: Editing by Bob Tourtellotte)

View the original article here

Strine confirmed as chief Delaware Chancery judge (Reuters)

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) – Leo Strine was confirmed on Wednesday as the first new chief judge in 14 years on Delaware's Chancery Court, which has overseen some of the biggest corporate legal battles of the past 30 years.

The state's senate confirmed Strine to replace William Chandler, who retired on Friday, according to a senate spokeswoman.

Strine joined the bench in 1998 and has built a reputation as a quick thinker, whose rapid-fire courtroom exchanges with attorneys contrast with Chandler's quieter demeanor.

As chief judge, officially known as Chancellor, Strine will assign cases and administer the court.

"This won't be a problem transition," said William Quillen, an attorney with Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and an author of a history of the court. "He's smarter than hell."

No one seems to doubt the application of law will remain constant under the new chancellor.

The Chancery Court decides disputes from the smallest property disagreements to matters involving trusts and wills. The court is best known for its handling of cases based on the state's corporate law, which governs more than half the large listed companies in the United States.

In recent years, the court has been the battleground for cases involving eBay Inc, Dow Chemical Co and Walt Disney Co.

The court is currently dealing with a surge in lawsuits challenging takeover deals.

One frequent critic of the court, law professor Jay Brown of the Sturm College of Law in Denver, said one of Strine's challenges might be sending a signal he would favor greater diversity on the court.

"He needs to address that if he wants to maintain the influence of the court," he said.

Strine's move to chancellor will open a vice chancellor seat, which is expected to be filled by Sam Glasscock, continuing the court's line up of five white male judges.

The state's supreme court, which handles appeals from Chancery, has one female judge, Carolyn Berger, who is also the only woman to have served on the Chancery Court.

"That's very unbalanced," said Brown, who also noted many of the judges come from the defense bar.

Brown said Strine could help change that in his role as the face of the court. He could send messages through the opinions he writes and in the speeches he often gives to convey that diversity is an important issue to be addressed, said Brown.

Strine did not return a message left with his office seeking a comment.

The history of the Chancery Court dates to 1792 and Quillen noted it had a role in one of the defining civil rights cases in U.S. history.

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, in which the Supreme Court swept aside segregated schools, was a combination of four cases. Three were appeals against lower courts that upheld segregation and the fourth stemmed from a Chancery Court ruling that integrated Delaware's education system.

(Reporting by Tom Hals; editing by Andre Grenon)

View the original article here

Anthony case recesses after judge criticizes lawyers (Reuters)

ORLANDO, Fla (Reuters) – Accusing the two lead lawyers in the Casey Anthony murder case of unrelenting gamesmanship, Chief Judge Belvin Perry threatened a stepped-up work schedule with "fierce days" as the trial began its fifth week.

Apparently exasperated Monday morning after extended discussions at the bench and in his chambers, the judge finally called a recess until Tuesday morning. No witness was called, and the jury had never entered the court.

"Enough is enough," the judge said. "Both sides need to be forewarned. I may have to consider exclusion of testimony, even at the price of having to do this all over. It may be the proper remedy if this continues."

Casey, 25, is accused by the prosecution of using duct tape to strangle her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, on June 16, 2008, then storing her body in the trunk of a car.

As soon as court opened at 9 a.m. Monday, prosecutor Jeff Ashton and lead defense counsel Jose Baez were battling, accusing each other of delaying tactics while defending their own actions.

"If you two don't want to be professional, I'll start working you a real, full day, with short lunch hours. I have a sequestered jury to worry about," Perry told the lawyers.

"Look at the clock and tell me what time it is," he ordered. Ashton said: "9:25." Baez said: "9:26."

The judge shook his head, saying "That proves you two will never agree. Plan to work a full day on (next) Saturday."

Saturday sessions have been running half days.

Casey Anthony's defense attorneys maintain her daughter Caylee accidentally drowned in the Anthony family's backyard pool, and no one reported her death.

The child's skeletal remains were found in woods near the Anthony family's home in the Orlando area on December 11, 2008, following a nationwide search.

Monday marked the first day of the high-profile trial's fifth week. During the fourth week the prosecutors had concluded their presentation and the defense team began making its case.

Last Saturday, Judge Perry had warned attorneys the trial was not moving along quickly enough and threatened to extend each work day by an extra hour.

On Monday he made good on his threat by saying he was extending Saturday to a full day, and warning that he might have to exclude evidence if the games didn't stop.

Exclusion is an extreme sanction that can ultimately lead to an appeals court or the state Supreme Court throwing out the results of a trial and calling for a re-trial.

"I'm not surprised that Judge Perry has lost patience," said Robert Buonauro, a criminal trial lawyer who has practiced in Orlando for more than 20 years.

"The judge is a real no-nonsense guy, but he's also pretty cool. They must have pushed him to the limit."

Buonauro also said if the judge does exclude evidence, the defense might move for a mistrial.

Perry reminded both teams on Monday of the request he issued before the trial began, asking that each expert witness send a report that stated all opinions they were planning to give.

The reports would give both sides a clear view of the planned testimony of each witness, and avoid surprises during the trial. Perry said those rules had been violated by both sides, and he wanted it to stop.

The recess will give the prosecution time to review a defense witness deposition taken during the weekend, and allow both teams enough time to review their reports and depositions to see that all opinions are mentioned.

Spectators who had waited in line Saturday for Monday's seat passes grumbled while they headed to the elevator. Court administrators said there would be no rain checks.

(Editing by Jerry Norton)

View the original article here

Judge hears from farmers in suit against Pilgrim's (AP)

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Angela K. Brown, Associated Press – Fri Jun 17, 8:13 pm ET

FORT WORTH, Texas – A federal judge heard more testimony Friday from farmers who allege poultry giant Pilgrim's Pride closed plants and ran them out of business to manipulate commodity chicken prices, which they say violated a Depression-era law designed to limit big meat companies' power over farmers and ranchers.

"We want Pilgrim's Pride to pay these growers what they've lost, the business value, and the mental anguish that they've suffered," Bob Depper, one of the attorneys representing the 275 farmers in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, told The Associated Press. He said a monetary amount had not been determined.

The trial that started Thursday in Marshall, about 175 miles east of Fort Worth, could last weeks or months, Depper said. It is being tried before a judge and not a jury, he said.

Pilgrim's Pride does not comment on pending litigation, company spokesman Gary Rhodes told the AP in an email.

When it closed some plants, cut thousands of jobs and shed production after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in late 2008, the company cited cost-saving measures. Pilgrim's Pride emerged from bankruptcy a year later as it sold a majority stake to Brazilian beef giant JBS. Last year the company's headquarters moved from Pittsburg in East Texas to Greeley, Colo.

Because Pilgrim's Pride filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth, groups of farmers initially filed civil suits there — as did the city of Clinton, Ark.

The northern Arkansas city filed a $28.5 million suit in 2009, alleging price manipulation and fraud, after Pilgrim's Pride shut down its plant there. Clinton, Ark., which was hit by a 2008 tornado that destroyed a boat-making plant that employed 45, said the poultry processor was essentially turning it into a ghost town.

But a federal bankruptcy judge in Fort Worth dismissed the city's suit and didn't allow more time to file an amended complaint. Earlier this year the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld those rulings. That city's suit is listed as terminated, according to court records.

The city of Clinton, Ark., is not a plaintiff with the farmers in the civil suit currently being tried in East Texas, Depper said.

The suit now in federal court in East Texas alleges that Pilgrim's Pride in 2008 started a plan to boost commodity chicken prices by cutting its weekly production by 5 percent after it closed two plants initially and also terminated contracts with farmers near its other facilities. The growers were devastated financially because no other chicken companies were in the various cities, making the farmers dependent on Pilgrim's Pride, the suit said.

The company's actions came on the heels of its 2007 hostile takeover of Gold Kist when it acquired $1.3 billion in additional debt, according to the suit.

The suit also claims that the company gave preferential treatment to farms owned by employees, managers and officers — including Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Pilgrim's Pride then-chairman and controlling shareholder.

Depper said manipulating prices violates the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, where lawmakers recently have argued over reforms that would better protect farmers and ranchers, such as making it easier for them to sue companies on antitrust grounds. The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not need congressional approval for any new rules, which have drawn opposition from big meat companies.

Many believe that to win a lawsuit filed under the law now, farmers or ranchers have to prove a company's actions harmed competition in the entire industry. But Depper said the antitrust component is not specific in the act, and judges have ruled differently depending on the case.

___

AP Agribusiness Writer Christopher Leonard contributed to this report from St. Louis.

View the original article here

Judge penalizes Hustler over dead woman's photos (AP)

ATLANTA – A federal judge on Friday penalized Hustler Magazine $375,000 for publishing decades-old nude photographs of a professional wrestler's wife who was later slain in a murder-suicide, marking the latest step in a family's First Amendment fight that had to survive a Supreme Court challenge before reaching an Atlanta jury.

The judge's decision sharply reduced a judgment of nearly $20 million that a jury initially awarded to the family of Nancy Benoit, whose husband Chris Benoit killed her and his young son before committing suicide in 2007. U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash ruled that the award can't exceed Georgia's $250,000 cap on punitive damages.

The lawsuit was brought by Nancy Benoit's family after the Larry Flynt Publishing Group published the photos in the adult magazine in 2008. The family claimed that Nancy, who was a model and former professional wrestler herself, had asked the photographer to destroy the images after they were made about 20 years ago.

The magazine countered that the photos were part of a greater story on the life and tragic death of Nancy Benoit, and a federal judge in 2008 concluded that the magazine had the right to publish the pictures because her death was a "legitimate" matter of public interest.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision a year later, warning that a notorious death shouldn't give publishers a blank check to publish any images they wish — particularly those not linked to a newsworthy event. The Supreme Court then dismissed Hustler's appeal in March 2010.

The photos were published after the wrestler, his wife and their son were found dead in their suburban Atlanta home. Police said Chris Benoit, then a wrestler for World Wrestling Entertainment, strangled his wife and son and then hanged himself.

Hustler's attorneys did not immediately return a message seeking comment Friday afternoon. Benoit's attorney, Richard Decker, said he's likely to ask the 11th Circuit to reinstate the jury's original award of about $19.7 million.

"That's a lot of money to walk away from," he said. Still, he added, "the family is pleased that the jury vindicated their belief that Hustler had acted egregiously in doing what they did. It was never about the money for them."

___

Bluestein can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/bluestein

View the original article here

Lawyers: Gay judge fit to rule on gay marriage (AP)

SAN FRANCISCO – Claims by the group that sponsored California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban that the federal judge who overturned the law was biased because he is in a relationship with another man are "factually groundless and legally insupportable," lawyers for two same-sex couples said Friday.

The legal team that successfully challenged the ban in Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's court last year argued in legal papers that the now-retired jurist had no obligation to reveal his sexual orientation or relationship status before he ruled that Proposition 8 violated the civil rights of gay Californians.

The ban's backers "lack any factual basis to assume that Judge Walker wishes to marry...and instead rely on nothing more than the fact that he is gay, in a relationship with a person of the same sex, and recognizes in his decision the importance of marriage in American society," the attorneys wrote. "Such unvarnished speculation does not come close to meeting the statutory requirements for compelling a judge's recusal."

The religious coalition that sponsored Proposition 8 moved last month to have Walker's historic ruling invalidated on the grounds that he stood to personally benefit from it.

The group's lawyers asked Walker's successor as chief federal trial judge in San Francisco to rule that Walker should have disqualified himself from hearing the case or at least disclosed his same-sex relationship.

In disputing that assertion, lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies, who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore in the contested 2000 presidential election, said a married heterosexual judge could have been accused of bias just as readily because Proposition 8's supporters argued at trial that legalizing same-sex marriages would undermine traditional unions and harm children.

"In fact, under proponents' reasoning, African-American and female judges would have been required to recuse themselves in the most important civil rights cases in American history and all judges would be required to disclose their most private thoughts and relationships in order to preside over any case that involves constitutional rights they might conceivably want to secure for themselves and their families," the couples' lawyers said. "That is not the law — and our nation is much the better for it."

View the original article here

Judge voids Wisconsin collective bargaining law (AP)

By SCOTT BAUER and TODD RICHMOND, Associated Press Scott Bauer And Todd Richmond, Associated Press – Thu May 26, 10:15 pm ET

MADISON, Wis. – The fight over stripping collective bargaining rights from Wisconsin's public workers will move into the state Supreme Court, and possibly back into the Legislature, after a judge ruled Thursday to strike down the law that passed despite massive protests that paralyzed the Capitol.

Republican backers of Gov. Scott Walker's proposal said they were confident the state Supreme Court would overturn the judge's ruling that the law is void because lawmakers broke open meetings statutes during the approval process. She had temporarily blocked the law shortly after it passed in March.

The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments in the case on June 6. Republicans who control the Legislature also could pass the measure a second time to avoid the open meeting violations.

Still, Democrats and union leaders who helped organize protests against the measure that grew to as large as 85,000 people praised the victory, even if it could be fleeting.

"It tells legislators `You can't be arrogant,'" said Marty Beil, executive director of the state's largest public employee union. "You have to do it in the light of day. You can't take stuff away from people in a backroom deal."

Mary Bell, president of the state's largest teachers' union, said she hoped the judge's ruling would lead to lawmakers reconsidering passing the law again.

"It is not in the best interest of students, schools or Wisconsin's future to take the voices of educators out of our classrooms," Bell said in a statement. "We've seen how this issue has polarized our state."

The last time the Legislature took up the issue, tens of thousands of protesters, including many teachers, descended on Madison in a futile attempt to persuade lawmakers to reject the proposal. The protests lasted for weeks and made Wisconsin the center of a national debate on union rights. Meanwhile, all 14 Democratic senators fled to Illinois to prevent a 20-member quorum to pass the bill. Senate Republicans eventually called a special committee meeting with roughly two hours' notice so it could amend the bill to take out spending items to avoid the quorum requirement.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi noted in her ruling Thursday that the open meetings law typically calls for 24-hours' notice of meetings, or, in cases with just cause, two hours. Sumi said nothing justified such short notice and declared the law void.

"Our form of government depends on citizens' trust and confidence in the process by which our elected officials make laws, at all levels of government," she wrote.

The Legislature's budget committee's Republican co-chairs reacted by labeling Sumi an "activist" judge. Sumi was appointed to the bench by former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Walker pushed for the law as a way to help balance the state budget that was projected to be $3.6 billion short when he introduced the proposal in February. Walker was counting on the savings to help blunt the impact of more than $1 billion in aid cuts to schools and local governments he's calling for in his budget, which could be ready to be debated in the Senate and Assembly in mid-June.

Walker's spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor would have no comment. Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would discuss his options with the state's attorneys, but whether there's an attempt to pass the bill again in the Legislature will depend largely on what the Supreme Court does.

Wisconsin Department of Justice executive assistant Steve Means said Sumi's ruling was disappointing and that he was confident the Supreme Court would overturn the decision. The Justice Department argued that the lower court judge had no authority to block enactment of a bill passed by the Legislature.

Ismael Ozanne, the Dane County district attorney who argued for striking down the law, said he was now focused on preparing for the Supreme Court arguments.

On Wednesday, the day before the ruling, the Justice Department sent Sumi a letter urging her to consider recusing because she appears biased against the Republicans. The agency pointed to a brief she filed with the Supreme Court outlining her belief that she has the authority to void a law if the open meetings law was violated during its passage, saying she shouldn't have set out her position before she issued a decision.

A message left at Sumi's chambers Thursday wasn't immediately returned.

The collective bargaining law called for public workers at all levels, from janitors at the state Capitol to local librarians, to contribute more to their pension and health care costs, resulting in savings to the state of $300 million through mid-2013. The law also strips them of their right to collectively bargain any work conditions except wages. Police and firefighters are exempt.

___

Associated Press writer Jason Smathers contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Judge: Corporate donations ban unconstitutional (AP)

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A judge has ruled that the campaign-finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional, citing the Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision last year in his analysis.

In a ruling issued late Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Cacheris tossed out part of an indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Hillary Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns.

Cacheris says that under the Citizens United decision, corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals to contribute to campaigns.

The ruling from the federal judge in Virginia is the first of its kind. The Citizens United case had applied only to corporate spending on campaigning by independent groups, like ads run by third parties to favor one side, not to direct contributions to the candidates themselves.

Cacheris noted in his ruling that only one other court has addressed the issue in the wake of Citizens United. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled the other way, allowing a state ban on corporate contributions to stand.

"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote in his 52-page opinion. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

In court papers, prosecutors defending the law said overturning the ban on corporate contributions would ignore a century of legal precedent.

"Defendants would have the court throw out a century of jurisprudence upholding the ban on corporate political contributions, by equating expenditures — which the Court struck down in Citizens United — with contributions. This is, however, equating apples and oranges," prosecutor Mark Lytle wrote in his argument to keep the indictment intact.

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, which is prosecuting the case against defendants William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi, said Friday that the office is reviewing the ruling. Prosecutors have the option to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

Defense lawyers, though, said the implications of the Citizens United case are clear.

"Corporate political speech can now be regulated, only to the same extent as the speech of individuals or other speakers," Biagi's lawyer, public defender Todd Richman, wrote in court papers. "That is because Citizens United establishes that there can be no distinction between corporate and other speakers in the regulation of political speech."

Danielczyk, 49, and Biagi, 76, who live in the Washington suburb of Oakton, Va., allegedly reimbursed $30,200 to eight contributors to Clinton's 2006 Senate campaign, and reimbursed $156,400 to 35 contributors to the 2008 presidential campaign.

Cacheris, in his ruling, allowed most of the indictment against Danielczyk and Biagi to stand. If the government does not appeal Cacheris' ruling on the constitutionality of corporate contributions, the case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

View the original article here