This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
That scene came to mind when Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in Congress to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists. He further pledged that he will not use such laws against parents objecting to critical race theory or other issues at these meetings.
In coverage of this trial, one would think that there were parallel trials occurring in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Any first-year law student knows that you cannot comment on the silence of a Mirandized defendant after an arrest under the Fifth Amendment – let alone ignore a court order. Wisconsin has a strong self-defense standard.
Gaige Grosskreutz who was shot in the arm by Kyle Rittenhouse during the Kenosha riots in 2020 is now suing him as well as Wisconsin police and officials. YouTube screengrab Just when you thought that the Kyle Rittenhouse case was over. it is back. Grosskreutz responded, “Correct.”
Moreover, while some have called for reducing self-defense protections, the jury applied the law on the books. It is not allowed to simply ignore the law to seek its own criminal justice rules. The Rittenhouse jury faithfully applied the Wisconsinlaw and came to a well-founded verdict of acquittal.
The most glaring question raised the report is, again, the refusal of Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a Special Counsel despite overwhelming justification for such an appointment. Attorney General Garland has failed in his duty to protect the Justice Department from such conflicts or the appearance of such conflicts.
The case also presents the question whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable under Employment Division v. A number of challenges to such laws have reached the court over the years, but National Pork Producers Council v. Wisconsin v.
This incident came after a judge was recently zip tied and killed in his Wisconsin home ; a former defendant in the judge’s courtroom has been charged.). ” Even law professors seemed to call for mob action. Georgetown law professor Josh Chafetz declared that “ when the mob is right, some (but not all!)
LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba charged McIver with a felony under Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1).
Padilla asked McDonnell if they could use “AI” and other means to give immigrants a heads up to allow them to oppose or evade federal law enforcement. You might want to talk to the city attorney about that.” Just to be clear, what the council member was asking would be a crime under both state and federal law.
There also were glaring prosecution blunders, including a potentially case-ending violation of a court order — and long-standing constitutional law — in using Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence against him. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
In the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, a jury of 11 white jurors and one racial minority rejected wildly inaccurate accounts and voted for acquittal – a result viewed by many legal experts as correct under Wisconsinlaw. The jury followed the law without any political or personal inducement.
are undeniably true after the arrest of Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan. Klobuchar added that the arrest “is a drastic move threatening the rule of law” and a “grave step and undermines our system of checks and balances.” “This is not normal.” ” Those words from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.,
Attorney Jonathan Roth. An informant known as “Big Dan” was paid over $50,000 to get the conspiracy going, including paying for the defendants to travel to Wisconsin to “train.”. We recently discussed the collapse of the Whitmer kidnapping case after a jury acquitted defendants in Michigan. Shortly before the 2020 election, Gov.
Raskin prefaced his legal analysis with a heavy dose of hyperbole, warning viewers that “theyre arresting judges” and portraying Judge Hannah Dugan in Wisconsin as an innocent victim of a law-hating, authoritarian regime. After Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sent undocumented immigrants to California (after Gov.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content