US court bars Trump from reversing transgender troops policy

A federal judge on Monday barred President Donald Trump's administration from proceeding with plans to exclude transgender people from military service. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the transgender service members who had sued over Trump's policy were likely to win their lawsuit. She directed a return to the situation that existed before Trump announced his new policy this summer, saying the administration had provided no solid evidence for why a ban should be implemented. Trump had ordered a reinstatement of the longstanding policy that barred transgender individuals from joining the military; service members who were revealed to be transgender were subject to discharge. Under President Barack Obama, that policy was changed last year to allow transgender people to serve openly. The Trump administration may appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision, but for now, the proposed ban remains unenforceable under Kollar-Kotelly's preliminary injunction. "We disagree with the court's ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps," said Justice Department spokesman Lauren Ehrsam. She reiterated the department's view that the lawsuit was premature because the Pentagon was still in the process of reviewing how the transgender policy might evolve. One of the attorneys handling the lawsuit, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said the ruling was an enormous relief to his clients.

Open records policy set for administrative court records

Kentucky's Supreme Court justices have approved an open records policy to guide how the public accesses administrative records in the state court system. State officials say the first open records policy for the Administrative Office of the Courts takes effect Aug. 15. The AOC is the operations arm of the state's court system. The new policy describes how to submit an open records request to AOC. Kentucky Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr. says the judicial branch has long complied with the "spirit" of the open records law, but says it's time to formalize its commitment in a written policy. First Amendment expert and Louisville lawyer Jon Fleischaker says he's looked forward to the time when the public had definitive guidance on how to access the court system's administrative records.

Idaho Supreme Court to hear veto challenge arguments

Proponents of a lawsuit challenging Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter's veto of a contentious grocery tax repeal bill will present arguments in front of the Idaho Supreme Court on Thursday. State GOP Reps. Ron Nate and Bryan Zollinger, both from eastern Idaho, spearheaded a lawsuit in April arguing that the Idaho Constitution says a governor has 10 days to veto a bill immediately after the Legislature adjourns.In 1978, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled a governor has 10 days to veto or approve a bill starting when it lands on his desk. However, 30 lawmakers have signed on with Nate and Zollinger urging the court to overturn its previous decision — a request rarely granted by courts due to a preference to follow prior judicial precedent. The lawsuit has attracted the support of House Assistant Majority Leader Brent Crane and House Majority Caucus Chairman John Vander Woude and House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Lynn Luker in the lawsuit. Also named in the petition is GOP Rep. Heather Scott of Blanchard, who helped lead an organized movement to disrupt progress inside the Statehouse this year to protest legislative leadership. Other legislators include Sen. Cliff Bayer of Meridian, who was the original sponsor of the grocery tax repeal bill this year. Idaho's top lawmakers are countering that the lawsuit is unnecessary because the court has already ruled that the deadline kicks in when the governor receives the bill. Secretary of State Lawerence Denney has also warned that if the court overturned the nearly 40-year-old ruling, it is unknown how many other post-legislative adjournment vetoes would be affected.

Trump visiting Supreme Court as justices weigh travel ban

President Donald Trump is making his first Supreme Court visit at a moment of high legal drama. The justices are weighing what to do with the president's ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries. But the reason for his high court trip Thursday is purely ceremonial, to mark Justice Neil Gorsuch's ascension to the bench. Trump has no role in the courtroom ceremony, but presidents often make the trip to the court from the White House to honor their nominees. While the dispute over the travel ban and other controversies have simmered during Trump's first few months in office, his choice of the 49-year-old Gorsuch for the Supreme Court won widespread praise in the legal community as well as unanimous Republican support in the Senate. A federal judge first blocked Trump's initial travel ban in early February. The president issued a revised version in March. It never took effect after judges in Maryland and Hawaii put it on hold. Two federal appeals courts have since upheld those lower court orders. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the ban to take effect immediately. Gorsuch actually has been a member of the high court since April, and he even issued his first opinion on Monday. The investiture ceremony typically takes place before a new justice's first day on the bench, but Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in on a tight schedule. He filled the seat that had been held for nearly 30 years by Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. The high court seat was vacant for nearly 14 months after Senate Republicans refused to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland.

Groups sue seeking court oversight of Chicago police reforms

Several leading community groups filed a class-action lawsuit against the city of Chicago Wednesday in a bid to bypass or even scuttle a draft agreement between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice that seeks to reform the nation's second largest police force without federal court oversight. The more than 100-page lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago argues that an overhaul of Chicago's 12,000-officer force in the wake of a damning civil rights report in January can't work without the intense scrutiny of a court-appointed monitor answerable to a judge. "Absent federal court supervision, nothing will improve," the lawsuit says. "It is clear that federal court intervention is essential to end the historical and on-going pattern and practice of excessive force by police officers in Chicago." While President Donald Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has expressed skepticism about court involvement, President Barack Obama's administration saw it as vital to successful reforms. Obama's Justice Department typically took a city reform plan to a judge to make it legally binding in the form of a consent decree. Wednesday's lawsuit — which names Black Lives Matters Chicago among the plaintiffs — asks for a federal court to intervene and order sweeping reforms to end the "abusive policies and practices undergirding the alleged constitutional and state law violations." Mayor Rahm Emanuel's administration said earlier this month that a draft deal negotiated by the city and the Justice Department — one that foresees a monitor not selected by a court — is being reviewed in Washington. Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malle cautioned last week that "there is no agreement at this time." A lead attorney in the new lawsuit, Craig Futterman, a University of Chicago law professor and outspoken advocate for far-reaching police reforms, said in a telephone interview that reports about the draft influenced the decision to sue now.

Candidate filing begins Monday for appeals court seat

Another election will be on the November ballot in North Carolina because an appeals court judge recently resigned to take a job in private practice.

The candidate filing period for the seat on the state Court of Appeals vacated by Martha Geer begins at noon Monday at the State Board of Elections and continues until midday Friday.

Every candidate who files will appear on the fall ballot. Since Geer left her seat a couple of months ago, there won't be a primary.

The candidate with the most votes will win an eight-year term on the court, which is comprised of 15 judges who hear intermediate appeals while sitting in panels of three. Candidates already are determined for three other Court of Appeals elections set for November.

Court orders release of detained immigrant kids, not parents

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Homeland Security officials must quickly release immigrant children — but not their parents — from family detention centers after being picked up crossing the border without documentation.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said that lengthy detentions of migrant children violated a 19-year-old legal settlement ordering their quick release after processing. Government lawyers had argued that the settlement covered only immigrant children who crossed the border unaccompanied by adult relatives. But the three-judge panel ruled that immigration officials aren't required to release the parents detained along with the children, reversing U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee's ruling last year.

Advocates seeking stricter immigration controls said they hoped the ruling would discourage adults crossing the border illegally from exploiting children as a way to stay out of custody in the United States.

Mark Krikorian, Center for Immigration Studies executive director and an advocate for stricter border controls, said allowing the parents to be released may have encouraged illegal immigration of adults traveling with children.

Court denies hospital's bid to perform brain death test

The Virginia Supreme Court has denied a hospital's request to allow it to immediately perform a test to determine whether a 2-year-old who choked on a piece of popcorn is brain dead.

The court Friday denied a petition from Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, which wants to perform an apnea test on Mirranda Grace Lawson. Mirranda's family has refused to allow it.

The Richmond Circuit Court ruled against the Lawsons last month but allowed them to pay a $30,000 bond barring the hospital from conducting the test while they appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The hospital asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the circuit court's bond order. The Supreme Court didn't explain why it rejected the hospital's petition.

The Lawsons' appeal is due to the state Supreme Court in September.

Kyrgyzstan sends case of jailed journalist back to court

The Supreme Court in the Central Asian nation of Kyrgyzstan on Tuesday refused to release an ethnic Uzbek journalist and activist serving a life sentence after being convicted of stirring up ethnic hatred, but instead sent his case to a regional court for review. International rights groups consider Azimzhan Askarov a prisoner of conscience.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee in April urged Kyrgyzstan to release Askarov, recognizing that he had been arbitrarily detained, tortured and denied his right to a fair trial. This opened the way for a reconsideration of his case, and Kyrgyzstan's Supreme Court began hearings on Monday.

The charges against Askarov relate to ethnic unrest in the south of Kyrgyzstan in 2010 when more than 450 people, mostly ethnic Uzbeks, were killed and tens or even hundreds of thousands were displaced. He is accused of inciting the mob killing of a police officer.

Amnesty International sharply criticized the court's decision on Tuesday to keep 65-year-old Askarov in prison while a lower court reviews his case.

"It's a missed opportunity for Kyrgyzstan to do the right thing by finally releasing a man who should never have been jailed in the first place. Today's decision by the Supreme Court ignores Kyrgyzstan's obligations under international human rights law," Amnesty International senior research director Anna Neistat said in a statement.

Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban restrictions

A federal appeals court's decision upholding California's restrictions on carrying concealed weapons gives lawyers a fourth chance to try to get the U.S. Supreme Court's attention on a subject directly affecting eight states and the nation's capital.

Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety. It was consistent with rulings since 2012 in three other circuits upholding similar restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. The Supreme Court did not take up the issue after those rulings. Alan Gura, an Alexandria, Virginia-based lawyer, has represented plaintiffs in each case. He did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.

UCLA Law School professor Eugene Volokh said he thinks there is less chance that the high court will hear the California case than the three that came before it because there are currently only eight justices.

The Supreme Court has never addressed directly whether an individual has the right to bear arms outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.

"It's an important question, the most important of the remaining questions on gun rights" that the Supreme Court has not addressed, Volokh said.

He predicted that the Supreme Court might eventually take up the subject if an appeals court in Washington, D.C., strikes down the city's strict gun law. Two lower court judges have issued conflicting opinions about the constitutionality of the district's law requiring that a firearm applicant demonstrate a "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property" before being licensed to carry a pistol.

High Court won't hear dispute over birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a group of American Samoans who say the United States should grant full citizenship to people born in the U.S. territory.

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling that said the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship does not extend to the islands that have been a part of the country since 1900.

Current law considers American Samoans to be "nationals," not full citizens like those born in Puerto Rico, Guam and other U.S. territories. Nationals are allowed to work and live anywhere in the United States, but unlike citizens, they can't vote or hold elective office.

The challengers said that the law violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that birthright citizenship does not automatically apply to the nation's unincorporated political territories.

The lawsuit was filed by a small group of American Samoans who did not have the support of the islands' government officials. The government of American Samoa has argued that automatic U.S. citizenship could undermine local traditions and practices, including rules that restrict land ownership to those of Samoan ancestry.

Court Vacates $1.8M Ventura Award in 'American Sniper' Case

A federal appeals court on Monday threw out a $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, who says he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle's bestselling book "American Sniper."

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the jury's 2014 award of $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment against Kyle's estate. Kyle, a former SEAL who was the deadliest sniper in U.S. military history with 160 confirmed kills, died in 2013.

The majority of the three-judge panel reversed the unjust-enrichment award, saying it fails as a matter of law. The majority also vacated the defamation award, but sent that portion of the case back to court for a new trial.

Messages left with Ventura's publicist and attorney were not immediately returned Monday. A message left with an attorney for Kyle's estate also did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Kyle claimed in a subchapter called "Punching Out Scruff Face," to have decked a man, whom he later identified as Ventura, during a fallen SEAL's wake at a California bar in 2006. He wrote that "Scruff Face" had made offensive comments about the elite force, including a remark that the SEALs "deserve to lose a few" in Iraq.

Ventura, a former Underwater Demolition Teams/SEAL member and ex-pro wrestler, testified at trial that Kyle's story was a fabrication. Ventura said he never made the comments and that the altercation never happened. He said the book ruined his reputation in the tight-knit SEAL community.

Hawaii Supreme Court voids telescope construction permit

A long-awaited Hawaii Supreme Court ruling Wednesday invalidating a construction permit for what would be one of the world's largest telescopes represents a major setback for the $1.4 billion project on a mountain astronomers tout for having perfect star-gazing conditions.

The ruling is a victory for protesters who say they are fighting the project to curb development, preserve Native Hawaiian culture and protect the Big Island's Mauna Kea, a mountain many consider sacred.

The court ruled that the state Board of Land and Natural Resources should not have issued a permit for the telescope before a hearings officer reviewed a petition by a group challenging the project's approval.

"Quite simply, the board put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held," the court's 58-page opinion said. "Accordingly, the permit cannot stand."

The ruling sends the matter back for a new contested case hearing.

"Today's decision provides direction to a new land board and another opportunity for people to discuss Mauna Kea's future," state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a statement. "The attorney general's office will be advising the land board regarding next steps."

A group of universities in California and Canada plan to build the Thirty Meter Telescope with partners from China, India and Japan.

Alabama Supreme Court sets Jan. 21 execution for Brooks

The Alabama Supreme Court has set a Jan. 21 execution date for a man convicted of raping and murdering a woman more than 20 years ago.

If carried out, the death sentence against Christopher Brooks would mark Alabama's first execution in more than two years.

Justices handed down the order Monday setting the execution date. A federal judge on Monday also allowed Brooks to join a lawsuit filed by death row inmates challenging the state's new lethal injection drug combination as cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins said that Brooks has until Dec. 4 to file for a stay of execution.

Brooks was convicted for the 1993 murder and rape of Deann Campbell of Homewood.

Houston Auto Accident Lawyer

Auto accidents account for the vast majority of personal injury claims in the US. After being involved in an auto accident most people aren’t sure what steps they should take immediately following the accident and in the days after.

The first thing to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident is the statute of limitations. This will vary among states and in Texas specifically, you have two years to file a case related to your accident. This two-year time limit begins the date of the accident, but it only applies to cases filed in court. For this reason it is important to file insurance claims as soon as possible – if negotiations or settlements break down along the way, you still have time to pursue damages through court. This two-year limitation doesn’t apply if a government entity was involved in the crash – for auto accidents which involve the government (say, an accident involving a public bus or unsafe public property) you have as little as 60-90 days to file an “administrative claim”. Even in a situation where a government entity was involved but didn’t seem to be at fault, it is important to file a claim as they might be more liable than you realize.

It’s important to consider who is at fault, as there are likely more parties involved than you realize. Perhaps there was a mechanical failure of the car which hit you; this would assume the automaker, and possibly auto part maker, are also at fault. Perhaps there was a large pothole which caused the other car to lose control; a situation like this might determine the government partially at fault for not maintaining road safety. It’s difficult to know who’s involved if you don’t have extensive knowledge of personal injury cases involving auto accidents and seeing the outcomes; this is why it’s always wise to consult with an attorney immediately following an accident.

The way fault is determined in Texas is also important to understand, as each state’s Comparative Fault laws will differ. Texas uses a modified comparative fault rule to determine how damages are awarded to injured parties, assuming that there isn’t only one party who is 100% responsible. For example, if you are seeking $100,000 in damages but the court determined the accident was 10% your fault, you will be awarded $90,000 (damages- %fault =award). Texas’s modified comparative fault law doesn’t apply if you are found to be 50% or more at fault, however; if you are 50% or more at fault, you won’t receive any award at all. This is why it is a “modified” comparative fault rule, as opposed to a “pure” comparative fault rule.

There is a lot to consider if you’ve been involved in an auto accident. Knowing when to file certain types of claims, how to file them, who all the involved parties are, and everything to include in your case can be very confusing, and is often done wrong. For example, administrative claims filed against the government are often dropped because the claimant didn’t include some necessary information. For these reasons it is always wise to consult with an experienced attorney. Contact The Salazar Law Firm for a free case evaluation if you or someone you know has been involved in an auto accident.

Arkansas's highest court keeps executions on hold, for now

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a lower-court judge overstepped his jurisdiction by halting the executions of eight death row inmates. But the high court immediately granted its own stay to give the inmates time to challenge a law that allows the state not to disclose where it gets its execution drugs.

The justices sided with the state in agreeing to toss a ruling made earlier this month by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen. Still, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said she was disappointed that the executions, the first of which was scheduled for this week, remained on hold.

"While the Supreme Court's decision is not about the merits of the case, it is unfortunate that this further delays justice for the victims. I will continue to defend Arkansas's lethal injection statute and fight for the victims and their grieving families," Rutledge wrote in a statement Tuesday.

Griffen had temporarily halted all of the state's executions, which were scheduled through January. He also set a hearing for March, and the Supreme Court didn't grant the state's request to order Griffen to adopt a faster timetable.

The prisoners are challenging the constitutionality of the state's new secrecy law, saying they need the information on where the state's execution drugs were made and how to determine whether they will lead to cruel and unusual punishment.

The inmates' attorneys also argued that the state agreed to tell the inmates that information as part of a previous settlement agreement in a different lawsuit. The state has said that agreement is not a binding contract.

Breathalyzer Tests and DUI in Florida

Breathalyzer tests have become a standard way that officers measure the blood-alcohol level of a suspect. While the traditional tests are still used alongside a breathalyzer, the breathalyzer results are going to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence against you when evaluating your DUI case. Let’s start covering how you can possibly fight this by exploring how these results are even determined.

A breathlyzer’s goal is to determine the amount of alcohol in your blood stream. For obvious reasons, it is impractical to draw and test blood at a traffic stop, which would give the most direct results. However, breathalyzer technology actually measures the concentration of alcohol in the alveolar air and uses this figure to determine the concentration in a suspect’s blood stream. As the alcohol you’ve consumed passes through the lungs, some is evaporated into the air sacs (alveoli) and this is referred to as alveolar air, and has a direct correlation with the blood-alcohol level.

There are 3 main types of breathalyzers that are used, and each will measure the amount of alcohol present in different ways. There is the standard breathalyzer, the intoxilyzer, and the alcosensor. The breathalyzer and alcosensor rely on chemical reactions to make a determination, whereas the intoxylizer uses infrared light. Most areas in Florida will use the intoxylizer to administer breathalyzer tests. Generally speaking, all three are accepted as standard breathalyzer devices and are recognized as reliable. However, the smaller devices that are used at traffic stops need to be calibrated and administered in certain ways, and often times courts will reject these occurrences as evidence. Instead, because of the multiple ways an officer can incorrectly administer a test at a traffic stop, a more reliable breathalyzer is often used at the jail, and the results of this are thought to be far more trustworthy when determining a conviction.

There are ways to invalidate a DUI offense that most people haven’t considered. Was there a legal reason the officer stopped you? Did the testing procedure follow Federal guidelines? Do you have a medical condition that might cause a false reading? Was the breathalyzer equipment used functioning properly? Was the test analyzed properly? Cases have been overturned through exposing errors in record keeping or the computer programs which run breathalyzer tests. Cultivating this kind of defense can be tricky and confusing for many people, so we always recommend discussing your case with a certified attorney. A skilled defense attorney might even subpoena the maintenance & calibration records of the device used, if applicable to your unique situation. To discuss your case and the possibility of dismissal, contact The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins and fill out a free case evaluation request. Read more about breathalyzer tests and DUI in Florida here.

Supreme Court to review European suit against R.J. Reynolds

The Supreme Court will decide whether the European Union can pursue its lawsuit claiming that tobacco company R.J. Reynolds sponsored cigarette smuggling in Europe as part of a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups.

The justices agreed Thursday to review an appeals court ruling that said the EU and 26 of its member states were within their rights to sue in U.S. courts under federal racketeering laws.

The suit alleges that RJR directed, managed and controlled the scheme that involved laundering money through New York-based financial institutions.

A federal judge threw out the claims, but a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that racketeering laws can apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.

The EU alleges that RJR orchestrated the scheme with the help of Colombian and Russian criminal groups and that the company laundered money through New York-based financial institutions. The EU claims the company's actions hurt the economies of EU member nations by depriving governments of tax revenues.

The suit alleges several violations of racketeering laws, including mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, violations of the Travel Act and laws banning material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

The company calls the claims baseless. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is a subsidiary of Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Reynolds American Inc.

Securities Attorneys Representing Clients in Florida and Nationwide

Securities are the financial instruments that represent a form of ownership or stake in a company. Securities allow individuals to own asset(s) without taking possession of them. Because of this, securities can be exchanged easily. In addition to this, pricing securities is not difficult which is why they are a strong indicator of the value of the asset. In order to purchase or sell securities, a trader must obtain a license to ensure they have been trained to follow a set of laws established by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Despite the regulatory agencies and laws in effect, fraud is still widespread. Fraud is an “umbrella term” that encompasses a wide range of deceptive and manipulative practices utilized by perpetrators to profit at the expense of the investor(s).

 

Types of securities:

Bonds, which can be issued by corporations or the government (Federal/Local).

A corporate bond is essentially a loan to a corporate entity in which you receive interest annually until the loan is paid off. Corporate bonds offer stability and are considered safer than stock in a company. Bondholders do not get dividends or voting rights which is why in the long haul, stocks have the potential for larger returns.

A bond issued by the federal government is very low in terms of risk and most frequently issued by the US Treasury. The potential for return is significantly lower than stocks or bonds issued by corporate entities.

A municipal bond is issued by state and local government. These include a city, county, town or school district. Typically,the rate of interest is lower than that of a bond issued by a corporation.

Mutual Funds , which are composed of a variety of securities.

A mutual fund can be stock options, bonds or both. In most cases, the investment is placed in a pool with monies from other investors. The fund is managed by an investment company, who selects the securities. The risk of the investment is reduced due to the diversity of the portfolio.

Stock Options

The right to purchase or sell stock in a company, at a specific rate for a window of time. The right to purchase stock is referred to as a call, the right to sell is called a “put”.

Futures Option

A futures contract is an agreement to sell a certain security in the future for a pre-determined rate. An option is the right to purchase or sell a contract at a certain price for a specified period of time. Since it used to reduce risk, a futures option is utilized by many investors.

 

History of Regulation

The regulation of Securities in the United States dates back to the 1930’s when the New Deal was passed. In the 1930’s & 40’s, five major laws were put into place by the Federal Government.

• Securities Act of 1933 a regulation on the distribution of new securities
• Securities Exchange Act of 1934- regulation of trading securities , brokers & exchanges
• Trust Indenture Act of 1939- regulation of debt securities
• Investment Company Act of 1940- regulating mutual funds
• Investment Advisers Act of 1940- regulation of investment advisers

Since the 1940’s a number of amendments have been made to these regulations in order to promote fair trade and enforce illegitimate/illegal practices. These major laws also serve to protect investors, ensuring they are adequately informed at the time of purchase.

While many measures are in place to reduce risk, it is still inherent, especially when dealing with non-governmental entities. Educating yourself on the common practices of Fraudsters can help you identify red flags when it comes time to invest your hard earned money. While often, fraudsters target vulnerable investors, savvy, educated people are still victimized.

Florida Based Law Firm Place & Hanley have represented thousands of clients nationwide and represent individual investors in claims for securities and stockbroker misconduct. If you’ve suffered monetary loss due to misconduct or believe your investment was mishandled, contact us for a Free Case Evaluation. View the original article at The Law Offices of Place and Hanley.

US court upholds Oklahoma death row inmate's sentence

A divided federal appeals court panel upheld the murder convictions and death sentence Tuesday of a 54-year-old man who went on a multistate crime spree in 2003.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm the death sentence of Scott Eizember, who received the punishment after his first-degree murder conviction in the Oct. 18, 2003, bludgeoning death of A.J. Cantrell, 76. Eizember was also found guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting of Patsy Cantrell, 70, for which he received 150 years in prison, as well as a variety of other charges.   

On appeal, Eizember alleged that the trial court allowed two jurors who he alleged were "impermissibly biased in favor of the death penalty," thus "depriving him of trial by an impartial jury and due process in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments."

The court agreed with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and a federal district judge in rejecting Eizember's claims.

Eizember was the focus of an intense manhunt following the shootings in rural Depew but eluded authorities for 37 days. He was discovered that November by a 75-year-old volunteer at a church, but then stole the volunteer's vehicle, which he abandoned near Waldron, Arkansas.

He was captured later that day outside Lufkin, Texas, after kidnapping an Arkansas physician and his wife, holding them at gunpoint for six hours and forcing them to drive. The physician eventually shot Eizember four times. Eizember was convicted of kidnapping, carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence in Arkansas and was sentenced 25 years in federal prison.

In a 30-page dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote that she would affirm Eizember's convictions "but reverse his death sentence and remand for resentencing before a fair and impartial jury."