Court to rule in Tenn. inmate's appeal
Lawyer Blogs
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether poor death row inmates seeking mercy from state officials have a right to lawyers paid for by federal taxpayers.
The justices will likely hear oral arguments around the end of the year in the case of Edward Jerome Harbison, who was convicted in the 1983 beating death of an elderly woman in Chattanooga.
Federal appeals courts have taken different positions on the issue, making the case a good one for the court to resolve, the Bush administration said. The administration wants the justices to decide that federal law for indigent capital defendants does not extend taxpayer support to inmates' efforts to win clemency.
Separately, Harbison's execution is on hold after a federal judge ruled in September that Tennessee's three-drug lethal injection method amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because of the "substantial risk of unnecessary pain" to the inmate. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering that case, following the high court's decision in April that upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection in Kentucky.
Harbison asked in 2006 to expand the responsibilities of his federal public defenders to also represent him in state clemency proceedings if he lost his court challenges.
Justice Department lawyers have argued against Harbison's request. "There is no constitutional right either to clemency itself or to counsel to pursue it," Justice Department lawyers said in the filing.
Related listings
-
Court will hear appeal by Tenn. death row inmate
Lawyer Blogs 06/23/2008The Supreme Court is stepping into the case of a convicted murderer who claims authorities concealed evidence that might have spared him a death sentence.The justices have twice before reinstated the death sentence for Gary Bradford Cone, who was con...
-
SF court protects privacy of work communications
Lawyer Blogs 06/20/2008A federal appeals court has made it more difficult for employers to legally snoop on their workers' e-mails and text messages sent on company accounts.Under a Wednesday ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, employers that contract an outsi...
-
Court sides with employee in benefits case
Lawyer Blogs 06/19/2008[##_1L|1235780052.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court said Thursday that courts should consider an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when reviewing the denial of an employee's health or disability benefits claim....
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.