Spanish court convicts 53 in corruption trial

A Spanish court convicted 53 people Friday in the country's biggest-ever corruption trial, which lasted two years and centered on widespread real estate fraud and bribery in the southern jet-set resort town of Marbella.

The defendants in the trial, which ended last year, included former town hall officials, lawyers and business representatives. The judge took several months to decide on the sentences — 40 other people were acquitted and two accused died while the case was being prepared.

Under a highly complex scheme in the mid-1990s, city funds were widely misappropriated, and public officials and business representatives divvied up under-the table kickbacks for planning permissions and construction of hotels, residential complexes and urban infrastructure. Much of the money was then laundered with the help of lawyers.

Marbella, located on Spain's southern coast, was a magnet for jet set and society figures from across the world during the 1970s and 1980s.

The man who prosecutors said was the mastermind of the fraud, former Marbella urban planning adviser Juan Antonio Roca, got the biggest sentence — 11 years — for money laundering, bribery and fraud. He also was fined 240 million euros ($326 million).

Roca has been in jail since 2006 when he was first arrested as the case broke. Back then, he was considered one of the richest people in Spain with his assets including ranches, fighting bulls, thoroughbred horses, art, expensive cars and boats.

The scheme began when late Atletico Madrid soccer club owner Jesus Gil y Gil was mayor of Marbella between 1991 and 2002. Roca began working for Marbella town hall under Gil and claimed during the trial that he was just following the mayor's orders.

Court: US can keep bin Laden photos under wraps

A federal appeals court is backing the U.S. government’s decision not to release photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden during and after a raid in which the terrorist leader was killed by U.S. commandos.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia turned down an appeal Tuesday from Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the images.
The court said that the CIA properly withheld publication of the images. The court concluded that the photos used to conduct facial recognition analysis of bin Laden could reveal classified intelligence methods — and that images of bin Laden’s burial at sea could trigger violence against American citizens.

Crone Hawxhurst LLP

We are trial lawyers based in Los Angeles, California. We focus on business litigation, including intellectual property, employment and consumer class action defense. Although headquartered in California, we represent clients in courts and arbitrations throughout the U.S.

Our partners graduated from top law schools. Before founding the Firm, they practiced at two of the country’s most prominent law firms—Quinn Emanuel and Simpson Thacher—where they worked alongside with and were trained by some of the country’s best lawyers.

We have developed a reputation as a “go-to” alternative to large, top tier firms (who often are our adversaries). Clients often hire us to represent them in cases that are already pending, either to replace their existing counsel or work alongside them. While we are aggressive and independent thinkers, we take pride in our ability to work well with co-counsel.

Our philosophy is to staff and run every case as if we were the client. Before embarking on a litigation strategy, we take the time to understand the client’s business and litigation goals. Our efforts are directed at obtaining efficient results, not racking up legal bills. We manage cases leanly and efficiently. Most often, two lawyers and a paralegal handle a case, even through trial.

Crone Hawxhurst LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1150
Los Angeles, California 90024

Tel: (310) 893-5150
Fax: (310) 893-5195

http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Crone.Hawxhurst.LLP.310-893-5150

http://www.cronehawxhurstllp.freeindex.com

http://citysquares.com/b/crone-hawxhurst-llp-20167047

Retired Supreme Court Justice O'Connor visits SC

Issues dealing with church and state will always be among the toughest the nation's courts deal with and there's no easy test for deciding them, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Monday.
"Religious pluralism lies at the very heart of the American political tradition and I think it remains a major concern as our country becomes ever more the home of larger and larger communities of people from widely different ethnic and religious backgrounds," the first woman appointed to the high court told a legal symposium focusing on a constitutional test she proposed in a high court ruling almost 30 years ago.
The symposium at the Charleston School of Law was sponsored by the Charleston Law Review and the Riley Institute at Furman University.
O'Connor's endorsement test proposed that a government action can violate the First Amendment's separation of church and state if a reasonable observer sees that action as either endorsing or disapproving religion. But O'Connor, who is 83 and who retired from the court in 2006, said that there is no grand unified theory for applying to such cases. Over the years the Supreme Court has made seemingly contradictory decisions.

Gerald B. McNamara - DUI Defense

Based on my experience as a former police officer, my team of attorneys has a unique understanding of what you have experienced if you have been arrested for driving after imbibing alcohol or utilizing drugs in Pennsylvania (which is more commonly known as driving under the influence, or simply DUI).  We realize that for many people arrested for DUI, this is their first and only encounter with the criminal justice system.  If you are reading this, you probably realize that this is not a very pleasant encounter.

http://www.gbmlawpittsburgh.com/criminal-defense/dui/defending-your-case

Court weighs warrantless blood tests in DUI cases

The Supreme Court is considering whether police must get a warrant before ordering a blood test on an unwilling drunken-driving suspect.

The justices heard arguments Wednesday in a case involving a disputed blood test from Missouri. Police stopped a speeding, swerving car and the driver, who had two previous drunken-driving convictions, refused to submit to a breath test to measure the alcohol level in his body.

The justices appeared to struggle with whether the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time is reason enough for police to call for a blood test without first getting a warrant.

In siding with defendant Tyler McNeely, the Missouri Supreme Court said police need a warrant to take a suspect's blood except when a delay could threaten a life or destroy potential evidence.

Court allows hearings in Nevada abortion case

The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a request to block a judge's hearings into the health risks of a mentally impaired woman's pregnancy.

The court's unanimous ruling allowed Washoe County District Judge Egan Walker to resume the evidentiary hearings Tuesday morning in a case that has drawn the attention of national anti-abortion groups.

The 32-year-old woman's parental guardians asked the court Friday to halt the hearings, saying Walker lacks the authority to terminate the pregnancy of their daughter, who has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old.

They claim they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions, and they want their daughter to carry the baby to term in line with their Catholic religious beliefs.

But the high court sided with Walker, saying he has the authority to monitor the woman's welfare and hold the hearings.

Justices noted the guardians failed to file an annual report regarding their daughter's condition and their performance of duties as required by state law. They also said the court obtained information about concerns over the woman's medical condition.

"The purpose of the evidentiary hearings at this time is merely to obtain information in order to make well-reasoned and informed decisions regarding the ward's medical care," justices wrote. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court has not exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion."

Attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the guardians, was tied up in Tuesday's hearing and unavailable for immediate comment, according to his secretary.

Guinasso has said he's aware of only one similar case in the country. It involved a Massachusetts judge who ordered a mentally ill 31-year-old woman to have an abortion and to be sterilized against her wishes. The state Appeals Court overturned the decision Jan. 17.

The Nevada couple said that while the pregnancy poses health risks to their daughter and the baby, medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy. The woman suffers from epilepsy and is on medication.