Anna Ayala, the Las Vegas woman who claimed to have bitten into a severed finger at a San Jose Wendy’s restaurant, was arrested Thursday night in connection with the case, San Jose police said.
San Jose police spokesman Enrique Garcia said Ayala, 39, was arrested, but he declined to provide further details.
“We’ve arrested her in connection with the Wendy’s investigation. She’s currently in custody” in Las Vegas, said Garcia late Thursday night.
Police did not say on what charges Ayala was arrested. A press conference is scheduled at the San Jose Police Department at 1 p.m. today to discuss details about the arrest, Garcia said.
News & Politics
Grokster president Wayne Rosso.
I stole this awesome quotation from Donna Wentworth of COPYfight.org, a great blog straight outta Harvard Law School. Donna has done us a great service by blogging from (something called) ILAW. Thanks, Donna!
Remember a few days ago that I said climate change would be the Achilles heel for the Chamber of Commerce and the anti-consumer, anti-lawsuit hacks who run it?
The White House and environmental groups are turning up the heat on the Chamber of Commerce, and some of its member companies are feeling the burn.
At a National Press Club event last week, seven different reporters tried to ask the chairwoman of Royal Dutch Shell how her oil company could push for climate legislation while maintaining its membership in the Chamber.
Toyota has been inundated with calls and e-mails from Prius owners, pushed by MoveOn.org to demand an explanation of how the automaker’s membership in the Chamber squares with the green vibe it wraps around its hybrid cars.
And New York-based Mohawk Fine Papers — “the largest premium paper manufacturer in North America” — pulled out of the Chamber this week. It was the seventh company to resign over the business lobby’s opposition to climate change legislation.
I cannot emphasize enough how incredibly stupid it would be of trial lawyers not to take advantage of this situation to drive members and membership dollars away from the Chamber. Look, the Chamber is already blaming defections of companies like Apple on trial lawyers anyway. So instead of standing on the sidelines and playing the scapegoat, why not go on the offensive and hit them where it hurts?
Put the pressure on. Make them spend their dollars defending their (outlandish) position instead of advocating for the dismantlement of the civil justice system.
Get to it!
Sara Caplan, a former lawyer for Phil Spector, will be held in contempt of court if she refuses to testify about whether she saw a defense expert mishandle material that could be evidence in the music producer’s murder trial, the judge ruled this morning. The decision carries criminal penalties, but the contempt ruling was immediately stayed until June 22 to allow Caplan time to appeal to a higher court. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler also gave the parties until Monday at 9 a.m. to work out a compromise.
Fidler said it was the first time in his 25 years on the bench that he has had to punish an attorney with contempt. The jurist was clearly sorrowful that the dispute over Caplan’s testimony led to his decision.
“It goes without saying that nobody wants to be here today,” Fidler said as he recited his ruling from the bench. “Nobody has any personal animus against Miss Caplan. “I admire her for taking the stance she is taking; I don’t agree with it,” Fidler said, adding later that as a judge he had no choice. “You often have to do things you don’t like.” “I see no reason why Miss Caplan should not testify,” said Fidler, who was a defense attorney for 10 years. “There is no other person who can testify to what she saw.”
This is the week that the Supreme Court, done with its regular argument sessions, enters the stretch run.
While it is too soon for substantive appraisals of the first year of the Roberts court, it is not too soon for stylistic observations about what is clearly, in the view of lawyers who have appeared there this term, a different court.
“The tone has changed,” Prof. Richard J. Lazarus of the Georgetown University Law Center, where he runs the Supreme Court Institute and teaches a course on Supreme Court advocacy, said on Tuesday.
In common with every other Supreme Court specialist contacted for this article, Professor Lazarus listed several obvious changes. “They’re not stepping on each other,” he said of the justices. “They take longer before someone asks the first question. They give the lawyers more time to answer.”
Beth S. Brinkmann, like Professor Lazarus a veteran of the solicitor general’s office, who now represents private clients before the court, said of the new courtroom experience: “You sit there and think, ‘Whoa, isn’t anyone going to ask a question?'”
WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 – It is not every day that a Supreme Court justice calls his own decisions unwise. But with unusual candor, Justice John Paul Stevens did that last week in a speech in which he explored the gap that sometimes lies between a judge’s desire and duty.
Addressing a bar association meeting in Las Vegas, Justice Stevens dissected several of the recent term’s decisions, including his own majority opinions in two of the term’s most prominent cases. The outcomes were “unwise,” he said, but “in each I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator.”
In one, the eminent domain case that became the term’s most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government’s “taking” of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result “entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program” that was under constitutional attack. . . .
[J]ustice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government’s ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California’s medical marijuana initiative. “I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters,” he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, “our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear.”
All politicians spin and selectively recite the facts that favor them — it’s the nature of the beast.
But I’m increasingly convinced that the Bush administration takes it a notch further, and just flat out lies. I’m convinced that they have repeatedly decided “let’s do plan A,” and then come out and told the press and public that “we’re doing plan B” when the two plans are diametrically opposed. That’s brazen. That’s unacceptable.
I’m increasingly convinced that the core of this administration has a radical “neo-con” agenda that they are systematically carrying out while knowingly lying about what they are doing because they know the American people would be outraged if they understood what the administration was really doing.
Just two examples:
Donald Rumsfeld was recently (3/14/04) caught red-handed on CBS’s “Face The Nation” lying about earlier lies he had told about Iraq. Read all about it here.
And Congressman Henry A. Waxman has compiled a report and database of the lies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice told to the American public and the world to get us to go to war in Iraq. It makes compelling reading and speaks for itself. You can see for yourself here.
I think the American people are beginning to wake up and notice all of this. I hope so. And I hope the mainstream, non-partisan press lends a hand.
Why are federal officials prosecuting people for importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardboard boxes? Or because a small percentage of the lobsters in a particular shipment were less than 51/2 inches in possible violation of Honduran law? Law Prof Ellen Podgor and Heritage Senior Research Fellow Paul Rosenweig ask: Have we won the war on terror or the drug war? Why the waste of resources? Read their op-ed in today’s Washington Times, Bum Lobster Rap.
A Texas law firm faked evidence and tried to bribe witnesses in a products liability case, according to a lawsuit filed on Monday in San Antonio by the DaimlerChrysler Corporation.
The lawsuit follows an appeals court decision last year that dismissed the products liability case and imposed sanctions of $865,000 against three of the firm’s lawyers. The appeals court called the firm’s conduct “an egregious example of the worst kind of abuse of the judicial system.”
The main plaintiff’s lawyer, Robert A. Kugle, has fled to Mexico, according to this article from The New York Times, which makes it pretty clear why the public disdains lawyers. (via Overlawyered.com)