Legal Radar

Jury Reaches Verdict on Ferguson Officer Case

A grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., arrived at a decision: Darren Wilson, a Ferguson police officer, won’t be facing charges in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

There’s a very high chance a majority will never know why it came to be the case. A grand jury, such as the one assigned to the Ferguson trial, are done behind closed doors. The primary reason is let witnesses gain the chance to make a testimony without worrying of reprisal.

One aspect that’s safe to assume is the issue of “use of force” by the officer, which likely came in to minds of the jurors.

It wasn’t disputed the Wilson shot and killed Brown early this year.

The “use of force” vary from one state law to another. Missouri’s current law is considered to be officer friendly compared to other states.

The court believed that the reason for the use of force should be judge from the standpoint of the officer on the scene. Jurors should account that officers are frequently pushed to make last second decisions.

Judge: Missing Child Trial Should Make Use of Confession

A suspect possessing a low IQ was aware of his rights and confessed to crime investigators that he choked a 6 year old boy to death back in 1979, according to a ruling earlier this week. The ruling gives prosecutors a chance to make full use of the confession, a key evidence in the missing child’s case.

Pedro Hernandez, the 53-year old suspect, has pleaded not guilty of murdering Etan Patz, a 6-year old and one of the several missing children posted on a milk carton. The defense said Hernandez made a false confession.

After years of investigation, Hernandez surface as the suspect in 2012.

After hours of questioning, Hernandez confessed by informing investigators on video that he choked Patz to death in the basement of his store. He said he placed the boy in plastic bag which he put it in a box and dumping it near his location.

Selection of jury is expected to begin early next year for a trial that will largely depend as to whether the jury believes the confession was genuine.

SC to Make Consideration on Facebook Post

Next week, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in a First Amendment case that reviews the battle regarding when speeches on Facebook posts and other social media outlets are in violation of the law.

The appeal, which is up for arguments next week, showcases a perplexing issue courts have been struggling to settle, and it does so when what people can say reaches a larger audience through social media. While social media firms have rules in handling separate speeches over the internet, the results may affect people who express themselves on such social platforms.

Advocates of free speech say the constitution allows people to express themselves, and that such ruling would chill speech on social media and elsewhere.

The Justice Department is saying the worry of restricting legitimate speech is overblown.

While Facebook isn’t indicated in the case, the firm is keeping tabs on the case. Today’s federal protects online social media firms from statements made by its users.

Judge Shoots Down Pension Overhaul in Illinois

A judge in Illinois last week made a ruling saying its public employee retirement system is in violation of the state’s constitutional provision, which prevents the government from slashing pension benefits.

The latest ruling, which will be appealed by the state, puts the state’s efforts in danger in one of the most underfunded retirement systems in the country.

Politicians passed the pension law last year after years of debate regarding the increasing number of liabilities from the state, which led to a drop in credit rating.

The pension law ruling that was deemed unconstitutional minimizes future retirement costs by further reducing cost-of-living increases for retired employees, increasing age of retirements for younger workers, and size-capping pensions.

Benefits for public employee pension us under the protection of the Illinois Constitution clause indicating that the benefits will never be impaired or diminished.

The state argued in court that under its “police powers,” it’s capable of making changes on the benefits.

Groups of Gun Control Pressuring NJ to Carry Out Gun Law

Gun control groups in Washington and New Jersey, are encouraging an NJ court to carry out an odd gun law in the state. This involves banning state sales of handguns that don’t employ some form of smart technology.

Two gun groups --- the NJ chapter of the Million Mom March and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence --- refreshed their arguments in a filing from the previous week, encouraging the NJ Superior Court to enforce such law.

New Jersey has passed a law indicating that once a technology is present to curb gun possession from an unauthorized individual, only such particular handgun may only be sold and purchased within the state.

The state law requires all guns sold in New Jersey to employ a smart technology to restrict their use on certain individuals.

Under such law, the NJ attorney general is obligated to make inquiries every six months to determine whether such firearms are present, and to directly report to the state legislature and the governor.

Court of Appeals Makes Reconsideration of Conflict Minerals Ruling

After striking down a ruling early this year that require publicly traded American companies to reveal as whether or not their products consist of conflict materials from Central Africa, a federal court of appeals may have second thoughts on the decision made.

The SEC’s “conflict minerals” rule imposed obligations for companies in the utilization of gold, tin, tungsten, and tantalum linked to armed conflicts within the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

A panel of judges of the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit earlier this year maintained a majority of the regulation, but made a ruling indicating that the disclosure requirement is in violation of the First Amendment since it forces companies to reveal the “blood on its hands.”

The results was observed to be a huge boost on SEC’s conflict minerals case. Early this week, the court of appeals indicated it would now make a reconsideration of the minerals rule.

The aim of the regulations is to prevent violence by forcing companies to avoid the use of conflict minerals.

Madoff Trustee Settles with Investors for $497 Million

A court settlement will bring close to $500 million to investors Bernard Madoff cheated on, placing their overall recovery to date well over $10 billion.

Irving Pacard, an official appointed by the court, tracked down the stolen money in one of the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the country, announced early this week that Herald Fund SPC and Primeo Fund, made an agreement to return back $497 million they received through their investment with Madoff.

The settlement rakes in total recovered funds in Madoff’s liquidation investment firm to over $10 billion, where close to $6 billion were given back to investors. Investors lost more than $17 billion in principal from Madoff’s Ponzi scheme collapse, in which he’s currently under a 150-year sentence in prison.

Based on latest court documents obtained on the legal issue, the settlement will let Madoff’s investors recover 1.32% of their claims than they’d have otherwise.

California Gun Law to Receive Ruling from the Federal Appeals Court

Early this week, the lengthy debate on gun laws has made its way to the spotlight --- out of San Francisco.

A three-judge panel from the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will be hearing arguments as to whether or not the gun law that was passed by Sunnyvale voters in California in the previous year is constitutional.

Gun rights groups, as well the National Rifle Association, are saying the law, which bars residents from possessing gun magazines that holds over 10 rounds, is in violation of the Second Amendment.

Citizens of Sunnyvale claim the law doesn’t intrude on their Second Amendment rights to possess a firearm in their homes for self-defense. Sunnyvale says the limiting the use of magazines makes a lot more sense since they’re used often in mass shooting including the gun shooting incident in Newtown, Connecticut, a few years back.

A California District Judge maintained the law saying that while the law in Sunnyvale had implications of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment rights issue is said to be “light.”

Oklahoma Oil Tycoon Makes Billion-Dollar Divorce

Close to 50 years of being an Oklahoma oil businessman, Harold Hamm did everything on a grand scale. As a chief executive and a major shareholder of Continental Resources, he possesses the biggest and greatest oil discovery to date --- within the North Dakota plains. His current net worth has been estimated to be over $18 million. This makes him the 24^th richest person in the United States.

Another superlative has been added to Mr. Hamm’s career: paying one of the largest divorce settlements in the country’s history.

After a secret and lengthy trial, an Oklahoma City judge ruled that Mr. Hamm must pay close to $1 billion to Sue Ann Hamm, his ex-wife.

The judgment demands Mr. Hamm to make a $320 million payment to his ex-wife by the end of this year. The rest can be paid in installments of at least $7 million monthly. The figure is a tad bit higher than Mr. Hamm’s salary in the previous year.

Media Firms Battle with FCC on TV Contracts Disclosure

Media firms want the court of federal appeals in Washington to bar the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from forcing their hand in revealing details of TV contracts regarding two pending merger reviews.

A recent request for an emergency stay, which was filed this week, came after the FCC maintained its position for contracts to be accessible for third parties to review Comcast Corp’s acquisition proposal of Time Warner Cable Inc. and a pending purchase of DirectTV by AT&T.

Television owners 21^st Century Fox, Time Warner, Scripps Networks Interactive, Walt Disney, CBS Crop, Viacom Inc., and Univision Communications Inc. have urged the court to vacate the order, escalating the battle regarding the issue.

Media firms argued that the contracts consist of sensitive business information and that such details, if fallen into the wrong hands, could place them at a disadvantage in the market.

In a recent filing, media firms argued the releasing contract details could cause major and substantial harm.