Courtroom Weekly: Artificial insemination, murders and wolf hunting

Courtroom Weekly the latest and greatest in court cases around the nation

January 3, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

DELAWARE

Delaware Supreme Court allows shareholder to opt-out of settlement

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

The Delaware Supreme Court, on December 27, 2012, ruled that an investor could opt-out of a class action settlement, which is expected to make it more difficult for businesses to end litigation with settlements. The case dealt with Celera Corp, which was acquired by Quest in 2011 for $680 million. One of Celera's larger investors, BVF Partners LP opposed the deal. Additionally, a smaller investor, the New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, sued Celera's board for selling too cheaply. This class action lawsuit was settled without the shareholders gaining any additional money. The resolution of this lawsuit released all shareholder claims, so BVF was not able to pursue a more rewarding settlement. BVF argued that the smaller investor was not an adequate representative of all the shareholders and wanted to opt-out of the lawsuit, presumably so they could sue on their own for more money. However, they were overruled by Judge Donald F. Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery. BVF then appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor, overturning the Chancery Court's ruling. The court's 34-page opinion explained that BVF could opt-out of the class action suit and pursue their own litigation. Attorney Francies Pileggi explained the expected impact of the decision, stating, "I think it would be fair to say that the decision today in Celera may make it easier for objectors to class action settlements, especially those with a substantial holding, to argue for an opt out option, which in turn may make it more difficult to bring closure to such claims and more difficult to 'buy global peace'." The case was titled: In Re Celera Corporation Shareholder Litigation No. 212, 2012.

INDIANA

Judge rules Indiana prisons' treatment of the mentally ill is cruel and unusual punishment

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

United States District Court judge Tanya Walton Pratt has ruled against the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) in regards to the State treatment of mentally ill inmates. IDOC has sometimes used solitary confinement in cases of mentally ill inmates, confining them to their cells for between 23 and 24 hours per day. This is a standard practice of the State in the case of any inmate deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, regardless of mental state. In her ruling, judge Pratt found this practice to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in the case of mentally ill inmates, as they do not receive the minimally acceptable level of care in solitary confinement. Pratt also noted that such confinement often leads to an exacerbation of the mental illness, sometimes resulting in worsening condition, more violent outbursts, or increased suicide attempts. Perhaps most notably, Pratt's ruling called the practices of IDOC, "deliberately indifferent," noting that the department was aware of the issues with their care of the mentally ill, though they did little or nothing to correct the problem. This is not Pratt's first high profile ruling in Indiana. In 2011, Pratt issued the preliminary injunction that disallowed the state from partially defunding Planned Parenthood.

KANSAS

Sperm donor for at-home insemination in a child support battle with Kansas

Court: Kansas Third Judicial District

In a unique family law case, a Kansas man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is fighting the state's child support order for the 3-year-old conceived after an at-home artificial insemination. William Marotta donated sperm to Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner in 2009, after the three signed an agreement releasing Marotta from all rights to, and responsibility for, any child conceived using the sperm. Unfortunately for Marotta, the transfer of the sperm did not occur with the help of a physician. If a physician had performed the procedure then the agreement between the parties would be upheld under Kansas state law. As of now, there is some question under state law as to whether these types of release agreements between sperm donors and prospective parents are enforceable when a licensed physician is not involved. Marotta was ordered to pay child support for the 3-year-old girl after the birth mother, Schreiner, sought state welfare assistance when the family fell on hard times. Before the state would give her any financial help, however, Schreiner was required by law to give the father's name to the state so it could establish paternity and enter an order for child support. Per the agreement between Marotta and the couple, Marotta was not named on the child's birth certificate as the father. This case, set to be heard in the Kansas Third Judicial District on Jan. 8, will create precedent in Kansas in this area, no matter how it is decided, and will likely be of interest in other states as they face similar issues going forward.

MONTANA

VERMONT

Vermont Supreme Court overturns murder conviction again

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

For the second time, the Vermont Supreme Court has reversed the conviction of a man twice found guilty of murder. Dennis Tribble, 62, is accused of shooting and killing Michael Borello on September 26, 2000. In the 12 years that have elapsed since Borello's death, Tribble has been convicted of second-degree murder two times, once in 2002 and again in 2009. On December 21, 2012, the high court reversed Tribble's second conviction, setting the stage for a third murder trial. Tribble has never denied shooting Michael Borello, but claims that he shot his unarmed neighbor in self-defense during a feud. Tribble shot Borello multiple times, once with a pistol, and then with a shotgun which he retrieved from his truck and used to shoot Borello several more times as Borello attempted to get away. After the shooting, Tribble immediately went to the police station and explained what he had done. He was arrested and has been in jail ever since. During Tribble's first trial, which took place in 2002, he fired three court-appointed attorneys, but also refused to represent himself, boycotting the trial after a judge allowed the case to continue anyway. Tribble's first conviction was overturned when the state supreme court ruled that "an order requiring Tribble to act as his own attorney was unconstitutional." Tribble was convicted of second-degree murder on February 14, 2009, and the following year was sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. However, last month, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 5-0 decision that the trial judge improperly allowed the jury to see videotaped evidence from a witness, rather than requiring that witness to appear in court. The witness, who was living in New Zealand at the time of the trial, cited cost and convenience as his reasons for not testifying in person; both of those reasons have been deemed insufficient to render a witness unavailable to testify. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Beth Robinson, states that "The right to confrontation is a fundamental constitutional right," and that "defendant’s rights were violated by the admission of the hearsay testimony." On this basis, the Court reversed Tribble's conviction. Whether Tribble will be brought to trial a third time for the killing of Michael Borcello remains to be seen.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly