The Supreme Court is declining to hear the case of a New Mexico photography business that claimed its refusal to photograph a homosexual wedding represented a protected exercise of its free speech as delineated by the 1st Amendment.
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected two National Rifle Association challenges to laws that ban handgun permits for people under 21.
Jamie Clark sits in prison, convicted of a crime from a tragic and unavoidable accident that occurred in October 2006. Clark’s innocence is backed up by the only eyewitness and hard evidence — evidence that was either withheld, disallowed or falsely refuted by a court whose judge has worked hand in hand with the prosecution.
Clark recently appealed his Sept. 15, 2011, conviction after discovering a Brady and Giglio violation: the court withheld evidence not provided to the defense at trial and permitted false testimony. Clark’s motion for a new trial was denied by Judge John Kastrenakes of the 15th Circuit Court, who was also the original trial judge. Kastrenakes was a prosecutor for nearly 30 years before his judgeship.
A travesty and mockery of justice is currently occurring in the racketeering case against Randy Gray of Albany, Ore. Circuit Judge Thomas McHill has teamed with a prosecution right out of the “Pit of Hell” to attempt to successfully prosecute the innocent Gray.
Gray, who is the father of six children and who has an exemplary wife, is — without question — honest, ethical and, above all: innocent! On the other hand, McHill and the prosecution, condoned and promoted by corrupt Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum, are nothing more or less than hypocritical thieves, keeping all pertinent defense evidence from the jury.
In December 2012, 26-year-old Daniel Johnson questioned Los Angeles Sheriff’s deputies about the harsh punishment they threatened against his disabled father for dropping a cigarette outside his home. In response, Johnson alleges, the officers asserted their authority by attacking his genitals.
In the first court ruling against the National Security Agency’s data collection efforts revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden over the summer, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the agency’s actions violate 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Alarming information about just how frequently law enforcement officials across the country (not to mention the NSA) are trying to get cell phone data, including your location, seem to be published in the news media every day. With these privacy concerns in mind, last week we filed an amicus brief in the Connecticut Appellate Court in State […]
It’s not in the Constitution — at least not verbatim — but most of us would agree that each able-minded, law-abiding American citizen is a “cognitively complex autonomous legal person with the fundamental right not to be imprisoned.” Now a lawsuit is seeking to endow monkeys with that same freedom.
This article, originally published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was written by attorney Hanni Fakhoury. Just because a jogger can see the outside of your home on a public street doesn’t mean you’ve surrendered all your privacy expectations in the home. However, that seemingly obvious concept is being put to the test in a federal […]
Encryption is one of the most important ways to safeguard data from prying eyes. But what happens when those prying belong to the government? Can they force you to break your own encryption and provide them with the information they want?