The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the death sentences of a Tucson man who bludgeoned his girlfriend and her two children to death in 1984 after lying in wait for each of them, ruling that the murders weren't especially heinous even though they were "atrocious" and "senseless."
The state's highest court unanimously vacated two death sentences for James Granvil Wallace, 61, and imposed two sentences of life in prison for the children's killings. That's on top of the life sentence he's already serving for killing his girlfriend, Susan Insalaco.
While the justices wrote that the Feb. 1, 1984, murders of Insalaco, her 12-year-old son, Gabriel, and her 16-year-old daughter, Anna, in their Tucson apartment were heinous in layman's terms, they weren't according to the letter of the law.
That's because the justices found that Wallace didn't knowingly inflict more wounds on the family than he thought were necessary to kill them.
Wallace was living with Insalaco and the children when he came home drunk Jan. 31, 1984, and she told him that he needed to move out, according to court records.
The next day, Insalaco went to work and the kids went to school. Wallace attacked each of them when they arrived home separately after hiding behind the front door.
When Anna came home, court records say that Wallace attacked her from behind and slammed a baseball bat into her head at least 10 times, so hard that the bat broke. Even so, Anna lay moaning and still alive, so Wallace told police that he dragged her into the bathroom and rammed the broken bat into her neck, down her chest cavity and out her back.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Court: Man can't sue gov't over records sharing
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal government cannot be sued for emotional distress after two agencies improperly shared a man's medical records detailing his HIV status.
"We hold that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the 5-3 opinion throwing out Stanmore Cooper's lawsuit. "Accordingly, the act does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from liability for such harms."
The San Francisco man, who is HIV-positive, disclosed that information to Social Security officials to receive medical benefits, but withheld it from the Federal Aviation Administration. During a criminal investigation involving pilots' medical fitness to fly, the Social Security Administration gave the FAA the medical records of some 45,000 Northern California residents who applied for licenses.
The FAA was investigating whether pilots were using one set of doctors to certify their fitness to fly while applying to Social Security for disability payments using other doctors to support claims of illness and injury.
"We hold that the Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize an award of damages for mental or emotional distress," said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the 5-3 opinion throwing out Stanmore Cooper's lawsuit. "Accordingly, the act does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity from liability for such harms."
The San Francisco man, who is HIV-positive, disclosed that information to Social Security officials to receive medical benefits, but withheld it from the Federal Aviation Administration. During a criminal investigation involving pilots' medical fitness to fly, the Social Security Administration gave the FAA the medical records of some 45,000 Northern California residents who applied for licenses.
The FAA was investigating whether pilots were using one set of doctors to certify their fitness to fly while applying to Social Security for disability payments using other doctors to support claims of illness and injury.
NM mayor-elect seeks court's help to take office
The mayor-elect of a New Mexico border town is turning to the state Supreme Court to help get him into office.
Daniel Salinas' attorney asked the court Wednesday to direct the 3rd Judicial District Court to revise an order that prevents him from contacting the Sunland Park city clerk.
Under state law, Salinas must be sworn in by April 5 or forfeit the seat. But the city clerk must administer the oath.
Salinas faces extortion charges in an alleged plot to force out another mayoral candidate by threatening to release a video of a topless woman dancing for him.
The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that Salinas' attorney alleges the court order violates his constitutional rights and amounts to the court indirectly interfering with an election.
Daniel Salinas' attorney asked the court Wednesday to direct the 3rd Judicial District Court to revise an order that prevents him from contacting the Sunland Park city clerk.
Under state law, Salinas must be sworn in by April 5 or forfeit the seat. But the city clerk must administer the oath.
Salinas faces extortion charges in an alleged plot to force out another mayoral candidate by threatening to release a video of a topless woman dancing for him.
The Las Cruces Sun-News reports that Salinas' attorney alleges the court order violates his constitutional rights and amounts to the court indirectly interfering with an election.
Swiss supreme court rules FIFA ban threat unlawful
Switzerland's supreme court has dismissed FIFA's "fundamentally unlawful'' threat to ban Brazilian midfielder Matuzalem from any football activity if he fails to pay ?11.86 million ($15.8 million) compensation owed to former club Shakhtar Donetsk.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal said Thursday it upheld Matuzalem's appeal because of a "manifest and serious attack on his rights'' by FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The federal court objected to FIFA's disciplinary panel giving Shakhtar authority to request Matuzalem's ban if he missed payments.
Matuzalem "would be delivered to the arbitrary power of his former employer, and his economic freedom would be limited to such an extent that the basis of its economic existence would be put in danger,'' the federal court said in a statement.
FIFA said in a statement to the Associated Press it would not comment on the verdict.
Matuzalem, who now plays for Lazio, and previous club Zaragoza are still liable for all the compensation, plus five percent annual interest. Zaragoza has entered bankruptcy protection with debts of more than ?110 million ($147 million), and is last in the Spanish league.
The Swiss Federal Tribunal said Thursday it upheld Matuzalem's appeal because of a "manifest and serious attack on his rights'' by FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The federal court objected to FIFA's disciplinary panel giving Shakhtar authority to request Matuzalem's ban if he missed payments.
Matuzalem "would be delivered to the arbitrary power of his former employer, and his economic freedom would be limited to such an extent that the basis of its economic existence would be put in danger,'' the federal court said in a statement.
FIFA said in a statement to the Associated Press it would not comment on the verdict.
Matuzalem, who now plays for Lazio, and previous club Zaragoza are still liable for all the compensation, plus five percent annual interest. Zaragoza has entered bankruptcy protection with debts of more than ?110 million ($147 million), and is last in the Spanish league.
Court takes health care case behind closed doors
The survival of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul rests with a Supreme Court seemingly split over ideology and, more particularly, in the hands of two Republican-appointed justices.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy put tough questions to administration lawyers defending the health care law during three days of arguments that suggested they have strong reservations about the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the overhaul and, indeed, whether the rest of the massive law can survive if that linchpin fails.
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.
The court's decision, due in June, will affect the way virtually every American receives and pays for health care and surely will reverberate in this year's campaigns for president and Congress. The political effects could be even larger if the court votes 5-4 with all its Republican-appointed justices prevailing over all the Democratic appointees to strike down the entire law, or several important parts of it.
Not since 2000, when the court resolved the Bush v. Gore dispute over Florida election returns that sealed George W. Bush's election as president, has a Supreme Court case drawn so much attention.
The court wrapped up public arguments Wednesday on the overhaul, which aims to extend health insurance to most of the 50 million Americans now without it. The first and biggest issue the justices must decide is whether the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, is constitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy put tough questions to administration lawyers defending the health care law during three days of arguments that suggested they have strong reservations about the individual insurance requirement at the heart of the overhaul and, indeed, whether the rest of the massive law can survive if that linchpin fails.
But Roberts and Kennedy also asked enough pointed questions of the law's challengers to give the overhaul's supporters some hope. In any event, justices' questions at arguments do not always foretell their positions.
The court's decision, due in June, will affect the way virtually every American receives and pays for health care and surely will reverberate in this year's campaigns for president and Congress. The political effects could be even larger if the court votes 5-4 with all its Republican-appointed justices prevailing over all the Democratic appointees to strike down the entire law, or several important parts of it.
Not since 2000, when the court resolved the Bush v. Gore dispute over Florida election returns that sealed George W. Bush's election as president, has a Supreme Court case drawn so much attention.
The court wrapped up public arguments Wednesday on the overhaul, which aims to extend health insurance to most of the 50 million Americans now without it. The first and biggest issue the justices must decide is whether the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that nearly all Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, is constitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)