US court upholds Oklahoma death row inmate's sentence

A divided federal appeals court panel upheld the murder convictions and death sentence Tuesday of a 54-year-old man who went on a multistate crime spree in 2003.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to affirm the death sentence of Scott Eizember, who received the punishment after his first-degree murder conviction in the Oct. 18, 2003, bludgeoning death of A.J. Cantrell, 76. Eizember was also found guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting of Patsy Cantrell, 70, for which he received 150 years in prison, as well as a variety of other charges.   

On appeal, Eizember alleged that the trial court allowed two jurors who he alleged were "impermissibly biased in favor of the death penalty," thus "depriving him of trial by an impartial jury and due process in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments."

The court agreed with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and a federal district judge in rejecting Eizember's claims.

Eizember was the focus of an intense manhunt following the shootings in rural Depew but eluded authorities for 37 days. He was discovered that November by a 75-year-old volunteer at a church, but then stole the volunteer's vehicle, which he abandoned near Waldron, Arkansas.

He was captured later that day outside Lufkin, Texas, after kidnapping an Arkansas physician and his wife, holding them at gunpoint for six hours and forcing them to drive. The physician eventually shot Eizember four times. Eizember was convicted of kidnapping, carjacking and using a firearm in a crime of violence in Arkansas and was sentenced 25 years in federal prison.

In a 30-page dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote that she would affirm Eizember's convictions "but reverse his death sentence and remand for resentencing before a fair and impartial jury."

DUI Penalties in Orlando and Florida

A DUI in the State of Florida is defined as an offense in which the operator of a motor vehicle has a blood alcohol level greater than or equal to .08. The manner in which the offense is proven may vary, but once convicted, offenders are subject to the same penalties.

 

First Time DUI Offenders

A 1st conviction results in the impoundment or immobilization of the vehicle. The exception, being if the defendant's family has no other means of transportation. The impoundment or immobilization shall not occur at the same time as incarceration. If the vehicle is operated solely by the employees of the defendant or by a business owned by the defendant, the court may dismiss the order of impoundment.
Additionally, the drivers license of the offender will be revoked for a minimum period of 180 days and a maximum of 1 year.
The minimum fine imposed is $500 and the the maximum, $1000. For offenders whose blood alcohol level is equal to or greater than .15, a minimum fine of $1000 is imposed and the fine should not exceed $2,000. In addition to the fine, offenders receive 50 hours of mandatory community service or an additional fine of $10 for each hour of service required.
The total period of incarceration or probation for first time offenders shall not exceed 1 year. The sentence can be served at a residential alcohol and drug abuse treatment program at the discretion of the court. This is credited towards the term of imprisonment. For offenders with no prior convictions and a blood alcohol level less than .15, imprisonment shall last no longer than 6 months. Offenders with no prior convictions whose blood alcohol exceeds .15 or had a minor in the vehicle at the time of the offense, imprisonment shall not exceed a period of 9 months.

 

Second DUI Conviction

If the Second Conviction is within 5 years of the first, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 30 days. The person may be imprisoned for up to 9 months and if their blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or they had a minor in the vehicle, no more than 12 months. Regardless, a second conviction within 5 years of the first results in mandatory imprisonment for 10 days in which 2 days of the imprisonment must be served consecutively. As with first time offenders, the court has the discretion to credit time at an abuse treatment program towards time served. Additionally, a conviction within 5 years of the first the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 5 years with possible eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 1 calendar year. Fines for 2nd Convictions are as follows: minimum of $1,000 and maximum of $2,000 . If blood alcohol level exceeded .15 or a minor was in vehicle, the minimum and maximum fines are doubled to $2,000 and $4,000 respectively.

 

Third DUI Conviction

If the Third Conviction is within 10 years of the second, the drivers vehicle shall be impounded for a period of 90 days. The driver is also charged with a Felony DUI. As with 1st and 2nd Convictions, impounded must not occur simultaneously with incarceration, in which a mandatory imprisonment of 30 days is served, with 2 days of consecutive time served. Additionally, the license of the offender is revoked for a minimum of 10 years, with the eligibility for hardship reinstatement after 2 years. If the conviction was more than 10 years after the previous conviction, imprisonment shall not last more than 12 months. The fines for 3rd convictions more than 10 years from the 2nd conviction are no less than $2,000 and no more than $5,000. If the blood alcohol level was greater than .15 or a minor was in the vehicle at the time of the offense, a minimum fine of $4,000 is imposed.

 

Fourth and Subsequent DUI Convictions

Offenders are categorized by the State of Florida as habitual/violent offenders and the penalties are significantly steeper, with the mandatory permanent revocation of the license and the possibility of up to 5 years of incarceration.

 

Additional Charges

There a number of circumstances in which additional charges are brought upon the offender, for which additional punishment is probable. Cases involving accidents that result in property damage, bodily injury or death, carry stiffer penalties. Offenders being charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter can be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison and 30 years in prison if they left the scene of the accident. The fines under these conditions shall not exceed $10,000.

 

Summing it Up

DUI Penalties are dependent on a number of conditions including but not limited to:

• The record of the driver
• Whether any other crimes were committed in the process
• The blood alcohol level of the driver
• Compliance with hardship reinstatement policies (ie: Fines,Alcohol Programs, Interlock Device)
• The presence of a minor in the vehicle
• The age of the Driver: Were they of legal drinking age?

 

DUI offenses are time consuming and require immediate action. Visit The Law Office of Jerry Jenkins to learn more about DUI penalties in Florida.

Alaska Supreme Court won't block Medicaid expansion

Thousands of lower-income Alaskans will become eligible for Medicaid after the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday refused to temporarily block the state from expanding the health care program.

The win capped a big day for Alaska Gov. Bill Walker, who earlier flew with President Barack Obama from Washington, D.C., to Anchorage.
"The Alaska Supreme Court's ruling today brings final assurance that thousands of working Alaskans will have access to health care tomorrow," Walker said in a statement issued Monday evening.

Walker earlier this summer announced plans to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage after state legislators tabled his expansion legislation for further review.

The Legislative Council, acting on behalf of lawmakers, sued to stop expansion.

Thirty other states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid, or plan to do so, to include all adults with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

The federal government agreed to pay all costs for the new enrollees through 2016, but it will begin lowering its share in 2017. States will pay 10 percent of the costs by 2020.

Some Alaska legislators have expressed concern with adding more people to a system they consider broken. Administration officials have acknowledged the current Medicaid program isn't sustainable, but they see expansion as a way to get federal dollars to help finance reform efforts.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner denied the request from lawmakers to halt expansion while a lawsuit moves forward. The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday agreed, saying lawyers for the lawmakers failed to show Pfiffner erred when denying the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Why hire a lawyer after a truck accident?

After being involved in an accident with a truck, you may wonder what the next step is, and if you should contact an attorney. Whether you were the driver of the truck, a driver of another vehicle, or a bicyclist/pedestrian, its important to know that you may actually be eligible to receive compensation for your injuries. Accident liability can be a very complicated area, so we recommend hiring an attorney. One of the first steps to take is to determine everyone who was involved in the accident. This includes all people who were physically there and affected by the accident, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. What is surprising, however, are the parties involved you may not have taken into consideration. This includes insurance companies, employers, vehicle manufacturers, government entities, trucking companies, or contractors. One advantage of using an attorney is that using their legal resources, they can quickly help you identify any parties involved in the litigation. Armed with this knowledge, you’ll be able to recover the maximum amount of damages for your injury. Next, make sure to receive medical treatment for your injuries. Keep up with all doctor/hospital visits, prescriptions, care plans etc. and don’t forget to keep copies of all related documentation. If your financial situation makes this a difficult step to take, please contact Hurt in Houston at 281.857.6770 to discuss how we can help. You’ll also likely be contacted by insurance companies who are trying to offer you a settlement – just remember, they are more than likely offering a far smaller sum than you are actually entitled to. It’s also prudent to understand how damages are rewarded, and these laws vary between states. Your case could fall under pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, or modified comparative fault (the latter has multiple provisions depending on the state). For example, in a state that rules under modified comparative fault with a 51 percent bar rule, any involved party is not entitled to damages if it is determined they are 51% or more responsible for the accident. If you’re in a state that practices pure contributory negligence, you won’t get any payout if you are even 1% at fault. Sound confusing? It becomes even less comprehendible when you take into consideration the multiple statutes attached to these laws – statutes that could, ultimately, affect your individual case in a way you don’t anticipate. Most importantly, don’t waste any time. Auto accidents often take into consideration many external factors like weather, road conditions, etc., and these external factors can be considered evidence. Often times and there is also a statute of limitations regarding these cases (which means if you wait too long to take action, you won’t be entitled to any reward at all). Hurt in Houston offers free case evaluations, so don’t waste in any time in contacting us. You can fill out a short form here, or call us at 281.857.6770. Read more on truck accidents on our truck accidents page.

Appeals court won't reinstate 1990 arson-murder conviction

An elderly man who spent 24 years in prison for his daughter's death in a fire will remain free after a federal appeals court in Pennsylvania on Wednesday refused to reinstate his murder conviction.

Han Tak Lee, 80, a native of South Korea who earned U.S. citizenship, was exonerated and freed last year after a judge concluded the case against him was based on since-discredited scientific theories about arson. Prosecutors appealed, saying that other evidence pointed to his guilt.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, meaning Lee will stay out of prison.

The New York City shop owner had taken his 20-year-old, mentally ill daughter to a religious retreat in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains where, prosecutors say, he set fire to their cabin. Lee has long contended the 1989 fire was accidental.

Lee, who returned to Queens after his release from prison, did not answer his phone Wednesday. He told The Associated Press in an interview last month that he still loved America and "I expect America to make the right decision."

His attorney, Peter Goldberger, called on prosecutors to let the ruling stand.

"I hope, now, that they will finally see there is no basis for this conviction," Goldberger said. "They can say it's nobody's fault, that science changed, that this is over now, and the federal court has had the last word."

Largo Bankruptcy Attorney

Financial situations can involve great amounts of stress and anxiety, and complicate the home atmosphere. At Watson & Moran we are prepared to give solid resolutions the stresses caused by troubled finances. We aim to provide personal, one-on-one solutions that guide you through bankruptcy.

Clients are in good hands with our knowledgeable bankruptcy lawyers. Keeping creditors away is our priority, and we help our clients to hold on to their homes, vehicles and other property. We can help you with a fresh start, relieving your debt and helping you move on with your life. Contact a Largo Bankruptcy Attorney at Watson & Moran to begin moving past your troubled finances.

Click here to find a bankruptcy lawyer and make a fresh start >>

Maine court: Anti-gay marriage group must disclose donors

Maine's highest court on Tuesday rejected a national anti-gay marriage group's latest bid to shield the identities of the donors who contributed to its effort to defeat the state's gay marriage law in 2009.

The National Organization for Marriage had sought permission to delay submitting a campaign finance report that the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices ordered it to file last year when it fined the group $50,250 for its involvement in overturning the law supporting same-sex marriage six years ago.

But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Tuesday that NOM can't put off filing the report and revealing its donor list until after the court considers the group's challenge of the commission's ruling because the justices said it's unlikely that the Washington D.C.-based organization will win its appeal.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills praised the court's decision, saying that Maine residents deserve to know who's paying to influence their elections.

"Enough is enough," Mills said in a statement. "NOM has fought for almost six years to skirt the law and to shield the names of the out-of-state donors who bank-rolled their election efforts. The time has come for them to finally comply with state law like everyone else."

After Maine's same-sex marriage law was overturned at the ballot box in 2009, it was legalized again by voters in 2012.

Maine's ethics commission ruled last year that the group broke the law by not registering as a ballot question committee and not filing campaign finance reports despite playing a central role in the 2009 referendum. The commission said the group gave nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee that led the repeal effort.

NOM has already paid the fine, which is thought to be the largest campaign finance penalty in state history.

But the group maintains that it followed the law, arguing that none of its donations were raised specifically for the purposes of defeating Maine's same-sex marriage law. The group, which has long fought in Maine courts to keep its donor list secret, said that revealing their identities will make people weary to contribute in the future.

Brian Brown, president of NOM, said Tuesday that he needs to discuss the decision with his lawyer to determine the group's next steps. But he said he believes that NOM is being unfairly penalized by the commission and the court because of its views on marriage.

"These are all unjust, illegitimate decisions," Brown said. "It does not bode well for the body politic when the judges and the ethics commission get to punish those they disagree with."

The supreme court acknowledged that forcing NOM to disclose their donor list will likely make the group's appeal of the commission's decision moot.

But the justices said that NOM hasn't put forward any persuasive constitutional challenges to the commission's decision or shown that the panel made any errors in reaching its conclusion, and therefore, hasn't proven that it will has a good chance of succeeding in its appeal.