A former West Virginia chief justice says a juror in his 2018 fraud trial defied an order to stay off social media and followed reporters who tweeted about the case.
Former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry, right, emerges from the Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse with his lawyer after his sentencing in Charleston, W.Va. on Feb. 13, 2019. (AP Photo, File)
RICHMOND, Va. (CN) The en banc Fourth Circuit seemed unlikely Monday to side with a disgraced former member of the West Virginia Supreme Court who claims a juror’s use of Twitter impacted his 2018 trial on fraud charges.
Fancy a career in nursing? The perfect apprenticeship awaits at Hull College
hulldailymail.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from hulldailymail.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
court got the law right when he examined trump s statements from the campaign. as you will remember, he made a litany of different statements about muslims. and so, the question will be whether he was allowed to look at those statements from the campaign when evaluating the constitutionality of this executive order. poppy? how much longer do we have in this appeals process at this point, laura? what s next and where? reporter: well, so, the case will go before the full bench today, the fourth circuit. and we were actually hearing about two significant recusalre actually. we were expecting all 15 judges, but we ve now learned that two of the more conservative-leaning judges have recused themselves, judge harvey wilkinson and judge duncan. so, that means ten, ten democratically appointed judges will be hearing this travel ban case, 10 out of the 13. and so, after this, the next stop is the supreme court. and you ll be there for us all along the way.
concurrence, colby v. hogan. here s what s he says. no one really knows what the right answer is with respect to regulation of firearms. i am unable to draw from the profound ambiguities of the second amendment, an invitation to courts to preempt this most volatile of political subjects and arrogate to themselves decisions that have been historically assigned to other more democratic actors. disenfranchising the american people on this life and death subject would be the gravest and most serious of steps. it is their community, not ours. it is their safety, not ours. it is their lives, not ours. do you agree with judge wilkinson that the second amendment is ambiguous? if so, should the ambiguity be decided by the courts or by legislatu legislatures. i hold judge wilkinson in high regard.
team. a.m., brouder, sutton. i can give you a long we ll find them and we ll read them. the bottom line is that i d like to convey to you from the bottom of my heart is that i m a fair judge. i think if you ask people in the tenth circuit, is he a fair judge, you ll get the answer you got yesterday from both senator bennett and senator gardner and from general kotchel and senator salazar ten years ago. i can t guarantee you more than that, but i can promise you absolutely nothing less. okay. i have a minute and 21 seconds. let s talk chevron. that s been used thousands of time and it really perplexes me.
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.