Latest news with #U.S.CourtofAppeals
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
cory booker: 'This is Kangaroo court…': Booker vs Grassley as GOP pushes controversial picks, democrats walk out - The Economic Times Video
US: Democrats stormed out of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday as Republican senators approved the nominations of former Trump attorney Emil Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Jeanine Pirro to the U.S. attorney's office for Washington, D.C.
Miami Herald
2 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Joe Carollo still has to pay $63.5 million after federal court denies his appeal
Miami Commissioner Joe Carollo's attempt to overturn a $63.5 million verdict against him, or at least be given a retrial, has failed after a federal appeals court ruled against him Thursday. A three-judge panel submitted its 19-page opinion that shot down Carollo's claims of jury tampering and dismissed his request for the $63 million verdict to be remitted. Potentially, this marks the final ruling in a years-long legal battle between Carollo and Little Haiti businessmen William 'Bill' Fuller and Martin Pinilla. In 2023, a jury ruled the commissioner had carried out a vendetta by siccing Miami code enforcement and other city officials on their businesses. 'We are encouraged but not surprised by the U.S. Court of Appeals' clear rejection of Joe Carollo's baseless appeal,' Fuller and Pinilla said in a statement. 'This isn't just a legal victory—it's a win for every resident and business owner who believes in fairness, democracy, and the First Amendment.' Carollo first filed motions to lower the $63.5 million judgment and request a new trial in late June 2024, but was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Smith. He met the same fate from the U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday. Carollo's legal team could not be reached for comment. No jury tampering found A large portion of Carollo's plea to the Court of Appeals revolved around his accusation the jury that saddled him with a $63.5 million payout had been tampered with. He claimed the judge in the 2023 case was given a note from a juror that said she'd been followed into a parking garage by Zach Bush, a business partner of Fuller and Pinilla. Immediately after, a jury inquiry was held by the court, with each juror questioned to determine if she had told her story to them and if it had affect their ability to remain impartial. The jury assured them they'd remain able to, and the trial ensued. The three-judge panel concluded the jury investigation into the alleged tampering was properly handled and, for that reason, dismissed Carollo's claim, the Thursday opinion read. As for the rest of Carollo's appeal, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over it and dismissed it, as his notice of appeal was improperly filed. 'The court's sharp questioning and the overwhelming evidence presented at trial reaffirm what we have maintained from day one: Carollo abused his public office to wage a relentless campaign of political retaliation against us simply because we supported his opponent,' Fuller and Pinilla said. 'We look forward to putting this chapter behind us and continuing our work to uplift Little Havana.'
Canada News.Net
4 days ago
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
9/11 accused faces trial after court rejects life sentence agreement
WASHINGTON, D.C.: A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on July 11 to cancel a plea deal that would have let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the man accused of planning the September 11 attacks — avoid the death penalty. The deal had been in the works for two years and was meant to end a legal case that had dragged on for over twenty years. The canceled agreement would have given Mohammed and two other men life in prison without parole, in exchange for pleading guilty and answering questions from the victims' families. The plot Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of leading involved hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and another into a field in Pennsylvania. The decision means that the long-running military trial at Guantanamo Bay will continue, with no clear end in sight. Families of the 9/11 victims were divided on the proposed deal. Some believed it was the best way to finally get answers and bring closure, while others felt that only a full trial could deliver justice and reveal the whole truth. Part of the deal included a promise that the accused men would answer any remaining questions from the families. However, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rejected the plea deal last year. He said that a decision as serious as whether to seek the death penalty in a case like 9/11 should be made by the defense secretary, not others. Lawyers for the accused men argued that the deal had already been legally finalized and that Austin was too late in trying to cancel it. A military judge and an appeals court at Guantanamo Bay agreed with the defense. But by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. disagreed and ruled that Austin acted within his rights. The majority of the court said that Austin had the authority to step in and that it was reasonable for him to say the public deserved to see the trial go forward. Two judges, one appointed by Obama and the other by Trump, agreed on this ruling. The third judge, also appointed by Obama, disagreed and said the government failed to prove the military judge made a mistake. Brett Eagleson, whose father died in the attacks, supported the court's decision. He said that plea deals allow the government to quietly end cases without full accountability. He also doubted whether the men would have been honest in answering families' questions. "The only valid way to get answers and seek the truth is through a trial," he said. Elizabeth Miller, who was six when her firefighter father died in the attacks, supported the plea deal. She said that after so many years — it's now 2025 and the trial hasn't even started — it might never happen. She also opposes the death penalty, which made her support the agreement.
American Military News
5 days ago
- Politics
- American Military News
9/11 terrorists can be charged with death penalty, appeals court rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Friday that the secretary of the Department of Defense 'indisputably' has the authority to withdraw from plea deal agreements with three terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks against the United States, clearing the way for the terrorists to potentially be sentenced to the death penalty. In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that the Department of Defense has the authority to reverse the plea deals made last July by former President Joe Biden's administration with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi. According to Fox News, under the plea deals that were approved by senior Pentagon officials and military lawyers, the three terrorists would have been sentenced to life without parole but would have potentially been protected from the death penalty; however, Friday's ruling allows the Department of Defense to withdraw from the agreements. Last August, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memorandum, saying, 'I have determined that, in light of the significance of the decision to enter into pre-trial agreements with the accused in the above-referenced case, responsibility for such a decision should rest with me as the superior convening authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2009.' READ MORE: Bill blocking Biden from giving 9/11 terrorists plea deals introduced by GOP lawmakers The former defense secretary added, 'Effective immediately, in the exercise of my authority, I hereby withdraw from the three pretrial agreements that you signed on July 31, 2024.' According to CNN, a military judge ruled in November that the Biden administration's plea deal agreements with the three 9/11 terrorists were 'valid and enforceable.' The outlet noted that a military appeals court also ruled against Austin's attempt to withdraw from the plea deals in December. The Post Millennial reported that President Donald Trump's administration chose to continue pushing for the plea deals to be withdrawn following the start of Trump's second term in office in January. In Friday's opinion, Judge Patricia Millett and Judge Neomi Rao wrote, 'The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements.' 'Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out,' the judges added. 'The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment.'
Axios
5 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Senate committee urged to reject Emil Bove's judicial nomination
Over 75 former federal and state judges signed a letter urging lawmakers to reject the "deeply inappropriate" nomination of President Trump's former attorney Emil Bove to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Why it matters: The letter sounds the alarm over Bove's "egregious record" amid mounting controversies. Former Department of Justice attorney Erez Reuveni and a whistleblower identified as a fired DOJ lawyer told the department's internal watchdog and lawmakers in a letter last month that Bove told department attorneys to ignore court orders barring Trump from deporting immigrants. Bove, who represented Trump in both his classified documents and election obstruction cases, was also among the DOJ officials who pushed to drop bribery and fraud charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. What they're saying: The former judges described Bove's role in the mass firing of Justice Department prosecutors who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack as "disqualifying" and his refusal to denounce the attack as "reprehensible." Also disqualifying, they said in the letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), was his leadership in the effort to drop the DOJ's prosecution of Adams, prompting several prosecutors to resign. "These are not actions of someone committed to equal justice under the law," the judges wrote. "Rather, they reflect a troubling pattern of abusing prosecutorial discretion to shield political allies." The DOJ did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Zoom out: Beyond his record, the judges say it is "deeply inappropriate" for a president to nominate their own criminal defense attorney for a federal judgeship. They pointed to the president's Truth Social post announcing Bove's nomination, in which Trump wrote his former attorney would "do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." The former judges argued, "That statement underscores the peril of confirming a nominee whose principal qualification appears to be personal loyalty to the president." Context: Among those who signed the letter was former Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was put on the bench by former President George H.W. Bush and advised former Vice President Mike Pence. What we're watching: Proceeding with Bove's nomination, they write, " would be a disservice to the constitution, to law enforcement, and to the rule of law."
