Baltimore defendants and criminal defense lawyers are opting for their day in court—even in minor cases, according to a recent Baltimore Sun article.

As a result of swamped courts, prosecutors are often left to offer more lenient plea deals or dismiss the case altogether.

Criminal defense lawyers are also requesting jury trials because they know that the idea of repeated court appearances sometimes deter witnesses from showing up and, as a result, their defendant’s case gets dismissed.

For a related article, check out Old Law Prevents Rapists from Prosecution.

Yesterday a federal judge ordered the Bush administration to release 17 Guantánamo Bay detainees.

“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for detention,” Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said.

The men, who are members of the Uighur Muslim minority in western China, have been imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay since 2002.

The ruling came after 7 years of legal disputes over the Bush administration’s detention policies and is the first of its kind.

Urbina said the men had never fought against the United States and were not a security threat, rejecting the Bush administrations claims that he lacked power to order the men free to the United States. The government made numerous requests that he stay his order to allow an immediate appeal.

The judge ordered the men to come to the courtroom and told them he would release them in the care of supporters in the United States. This comes to a relief for the 17 men, because their lawyers argued that they would be persecuted or killed if they were ordered to return to China.

The Bush administration finally gave up in trying to prove that the 17 men were enemy combatants (which is the classification it uses to detain people at the prison where 255 other people are being held), but has vigorously fought to keep them from being released in the United States. They argue that they’re a national security threat because the men allegedly received weapon training in suspected Taliban-controlled regions at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America.

The administration is planning to file an emergency application for a stay through the federal appeals court. The White House press secretary said, “if allowed to stand, [this ruling] could be used as precedent for other detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, including sworn enemies of the United States suspected of planning the attacks of 9/11, who may also seek release into our country.”

The Bush administration has exhaustingly argued that the executive branch of government has the power to continue its detention policies because it’s a time of war.

Federal courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court have questioned the Bush administration’s authority claims and, in several cases like this one, have rejected their allegations of supremacy.

Related Articles:

• Mexican Children Denied Human Dignity
• Court Throws Out Federal Law Allowing Government to Commit Sex Offenders Upon Release From Prison

A notorious 81-year-old lawyer who went to jail for blinding his lover with lye has found himself in hot water again—and he took another fellow criminal defense lawyer down with him.

The lawyer, who was disbarred after the felony conviction, has been using a Queens, NY criminal defense lawyer as a “front man” so he could continue to practice law.

The criminal defense attorney was subsequently disbarred for his actions, as the state appeals court ruled that “[The aiding defense lawyer] afforded so little regard to his law license as to allow a disbarred felon to use his name freely on court papers and to advertise himself as his paralegal.”

Related Total Lawyers articles:
• The 6th Amendment, a Miami Lawyer & A Columbian Drug Lord
• Judge Allows Police Raid Of Defense Attorney’s Office

In a small Mississippi town, a prosecuting attorney called his witness, an elderly woman, to the stand to examine her, according to a blog post. Here’s a transcription of their conversation:

Prosecutor: “Mrs. Jones, do you know me?”

Grandma Jones: “Why, yes, I do know you, Mr. Williams. I’ve known you since you were a little boy, and frankly, you’ve been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife and you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you’re a big shot when you haven’t the brains to realize you’ll never amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you.”

Stunned prosecutor, fumbling, pointed to the defense lawyer and said: “Mrs. Jones, do you know the defense attorney?”

Grandma Jones: “Why yes, I do. I’ve known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster too. He’s lazy, bigoted, and he has a drinking problem. He can’t build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state. Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. One of them was your wife. Yes, I know him.”

Judge then asked both lawyers to approach the bench and said: “If either of you idiots asks her if she knows me, I’ll send you both to the electric chair.”

Other interesting law articles from Total Lawyers:

• Judge Allows Police Raid of Defense Attorney’s Office
• Court Rules In Gay Discrimination Case

State attorneys wants a Tucson man banned from owning another massage parlor because they say that he ran a prostitution ring and tried to masquerade it as a church.

John LaVoie’s latest legal argument is that he hired women at his business to not sell sex, but to comfort people through the “religious act” of “laying on of hands”.

LaVoie was recently convicted by a jury on 22 counts for racketeering, money-laundering and other offenses related to prostitution in a civil forfeiture.

No criminal charges have been filed against the man due to a police officer allegedly compromising the investigation, but the civil forfeiture, which is a proceeding that allows the government to seize assets if it can prove they were obtained in an illegal manner, could result in LaVoie forfeiting nearly $2 million worth of cash and property.

The civil forfeiture case could also permanently bar him from working or having any stake in any massage business.

LaVoie is fighting hard to keep his money and the right to work in the massage business. He has recently citing his constitutional right of freedom of religion as a defense.

LaVoie testified that he is the pastor of the Church of Liberty and his defense lawyers argue that he has the First Amendment right “to freely exercise his religion, which includes offering comfort through the laying on of hands”.

An assistant attorney general said that his hired “angels” were, in reality, committing acts of prostitution with male customers.

Related Criminal Defense Law Articles:

• Old Law Prevents Rapists from Prosecution
• The 6th Amendment, a Miami Lawyer & A Columbian Drug Lord

The independent newspaper the Michigan Messenger recently published a story on a tactic being pushed forward by operatives in the Michigan Republican party to dampen some of the enthusiasm that Democratic candidate Barack Obama has generated among residents of Michigan.  Republicans are reportedly getting trounced in voter registration drives by Democrats across the United States, and so trying to close that gap is a defensive strategy that may work to tip close states.

Republicans are providing lists of foreclosed homes to election officials in order to stop individuals registered at those addresses from voting.  There is a dispute about the legality of the tactic, since the resident still legally owns the home until foreclosure proceedings end; those published in foreclosure notices may not have technically lost their residence at the time and would therefore still be eligible to vote.

The Obama campaign has now filed a lawsuit, according to the Wall Street Journal, challenging the statements made by Republican Party officials in Michigan.  The lawsuit alleges that the Republicans may be engaging in attempts to intimidate or harrass voters by only stopping those who have received a foreclosure notice. As is the case across the country, many of the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis are in minority neighborhoods, and the profiling of homowners in foreclosure may be tantamount to racial profiling.

Of course, after the 2000 Florida recount dispute, the legality of procedures in national elections has become a common challenge.  Ohio and Florida have also recently seen lawsuits over voting procedures.

For much more, see our feature article at Total Lawyers.

Reason Magazine’s “Hit and Run” blog featured an interesting question earlier today: can the law be copyrighted?

In California, the answer is yes.  Though the entire state code is available online for free, the state charges around $1500 to download a copy of the legal statutes for personal use, and around $2300 for a printed copy.  According to the news reports cited, the state makes nearly $1 million in revenue just from selling rights to possess its statutes.

One citizen from Sebastopol, CA, is trying to challenge that practice.  Carl Malamud is a crusader against what he believes to be copyright abuse.  His challenge is that ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law, and therefore all citizens should have rights to access the statutes that govern them.  He posted all 38 volumes of the state code on Labor Day, and is basically just waiting for a legal challenge.

Malamud is no stranger to tussling with bureacrats over document copyrights.  As Reason notes, he was responsible for getting the SEC, as well as the patent office, to publish corporate filings online.  His latest fight was similar: he forced Oregon to stop exercising copyright control over its state laws. 

For more on interesting legal challenges in the news, visit the Total Lawyers Articles section.

A judge has ruled that the case Lenz v. Universal, notoriously known as the “dancing baby” lawsuit, should be allowed to go forward, dismissing a motion by Universal to throw out the lawsuit based on the grounds that Universal does not have the resources to consider “fair use” as provided in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

The dispute was over a 29-second home video posted to YouTube that depicted a toddler dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince.  Universal ordered that the video be taken down from the website for violating copyright restrictions on the song that it holds the copyright to as part of Prince’s back catalogue.  However, Stephanie Lenz decided to sue Universal for the right to post the video based on the “fair use” principle—that the video was not intended for profit, the use of the music was faint and insubstantial.

Universal then moved to have Lenz’s case thrown out on the grounds that they do not have the resources to examine for fair use in every single video instance of possible copyright.  Typically, a large company will have a search string that identifies these videos based on a performer’s name, and sends out notices of takedown electronically by the thousands.

However, Judge Jeremy Fogel disagreed, ruling that it in fact was not unreasonable for Universal to consider fair use before ordering a takedown under the DMCA.  He is allowing the case to proceed.  Check back in the future for more updates on this important copyright and DMCA issue!

Yahoo is already calling it one of the most significant court rulings of the year for the tech industry: a Superior Court judge in California ruled yesterday that the early termination fees charged by cell phone carriers when customers end contracts early are in violation of state laws.

As a result of the decision, Sprint Nextel, the third largest wireless telecommunications network in the United States, has been ordered to reimburse California customers $18.2 million, and also stop pursuit of $54.7 million in unpaid early termination fees.

Long reviled by cell-phone users, the early termination fees were one way that companies kept customers locked in to long-term contracts.  The outcome of the decision will likely be appealed, but even barring that possible challenge, the telecom industry seems more keen on getting the FCC involved to override states who choose to rain on their parade. As Yahoo claims, this is an important decision, one whose consequences could play out in interesting ways.

The nearly-20-year-old oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound by the Exxon Valdex supertanker has once again grabbed national headlines, as the Supreme Court stepped in yesterday to change a lower court’s ruling on its penalty of punitive damages for the spill.   Originally, the oil giant was responsible for $507 million in compensatory damages to natives of Alaska, landowners and commercial fisherman whose lives and livelihoods were ruined by the 1989 incident, as well as a massive $5 billion penalty in punitive damages.

A California appeals court later reduced the punitive damages in half to $2.5 billion, before yesterday’s decision to match the punitive damages to the compensatory damages at $507 million.  Individuals will be compensated at roughly $15,000 each in this new settlement amount.

Justice David Souter, in writing the opinion of the 5-3 majority, stated that a one-to-one ratio is appropriate in maritime cases.  His wording left some doubt among legal experts as to whether or not the “one-to-one” ruling is applicable outside maritime law.

For more on recent and past Supreme Court decisions, visit the Total Lawyers news and articles section.