News from Virginia
|
Yelp reviewers may no longer be so anonymous
Court: Virginia Court of Appeals
|
|---|
| When Joe Hadeed received seven negative reviews on Yelp.com, he didn’t believe they were written by customers of his business, Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, so he decided to sue the anonymous reviewers for defamation.[5]
In his suit, Hadeed subpoenaed Yelp, the popular business review website, seeking the identities of the seven reviewers. Yelp refused, stating that the anonymous reviews on their website were free speech and thus protected by the First Amendment.[6]
The Virginia Court of Appeals agreed that an anonymous review on Yelp would, in normal circumstances, be entitled to a First Amendment protection. However, the court noted an exception in this case, explaining:
| “
|
If this underlying assumption of fact proves false, in that the reviewer was never a customer of the business, then the review is not an opinion; instead, the review is based on a false statement of fact—that the reviewer is writing his review based on personal experience. And “‘there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.’"[7][8][4]
|
”
|
Hadeed had compared the seven Yelp reviews against his customer database and had come to the conclusion that the reviewers could not have been actual patrons of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning. The Virginia Court of Appeals agreed, finding that Hadeed had provided sufficient evidence to assert that the seven reviewers may not have been his customers and that the reviews may be defamatory in nature. Furthermore, in order to advance his defamation suit, the identities of the reviewers would have to be revealed; according to the court “there is no other option.”[8]
Yelp responded:
| “
|
We are disappointed that the Virginia Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that fails to adequately protect free speech rights on the internet, and which allows businesses to seek personal details about website users — without any evidence of wrongdoing — in efforts to silence online critics.[9][4]
|
”
|
Yelp further found the court’s legal standard troubling and stated that “[o]ther states require that plaintiffs lay out actual facts before such information is allowed to be obtained, and have adopted strong protections in order to prevent online speech from being stifled by those upset with what has been said. We continue to urge Virginia to do the same.”[9]
A number of states require supporting evidence before anonymous online users can be identified. However, Virginia law requires only a showing that “communications made by the anonymous communicator are or may be tortious or illegal or the plaintiff has a legitimate, good faith basis to contend that such party is the victim of conduct actionable in the jurisdiction where the suit is filed…[and] other reasonable efforts to identify the anonymous communicator have proven fruitless.”[8] The Virginia Court of Appeals declined to decide whether or not this law may be unconstitutional. Since Yelp has already decided to appeal the ruling, such a decision may be left to the Supreme Court of Virginia.[5] |
|
News from South Dakota
|
High court reaffirms death sentence for convict in South Dakota torture, murder case
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
|
|---|
| For the third time, an Alaska man who tortured and killed a South Dakota man has heard in court he will be executed. On January 9, 2014, the South Dakota Supreme Court heard a second appeal from 33-year-old Briley Piper of Anchorage.[10]
The high court rejected his appeal and upheld his death sentence for crimes committed against Chester Allan Poage, a 19-year-old man from Spearfish, South Dakota, in 2000. The court also unanimously rejected his request to withdraw his original guilty plea. His lawyers had told him a judge would be less likely than a jury to find the death penalty appropriate. Piper faced a judge in 2001, and the judge ordered capital punishment.[10]
Piper’s first appeal was successful—in 2009, the supreme court overturned the death sentence when it ruled that a jury should have decided in the case. In August 2011, a jury agreed with the original sentence.[10][11]
His latest appeal complained of the discrepancy between his sentence and those stemming from similar cases, including the sentence of one of his accomplices, Darrell Hoadley, who got life in prison without the possibility of parole. Another accomplice, Elijah Page, was already executed in July 2007 after pleading guilty. Page was the first person executed in the state in six decades. All three of the convicted had apparently been friends with the victim.[10][11]
The court, in rejecting Piper’s appeal, compared his case to the 2011 murder of R.J. Johnson, a South Dakota Penitentiary corrections officer, by Eric Robert and Rodney Berget. Chief Justice David Gilbertson wrote in the opinion: “Similar to the disfiguring injuries that Robert and his co-defendant inflicted upon Johnson, Piper and his co-defendants caused disfiguring injuries to Poage.”[11]
The court noted Thursday that Poage begged for mercy, and that Piper bragged after killing him. The court also indicated Piper kicked and stabbed the victim and fed him a toxic liquid. The court described Piper’s personality as manipulative and considered him the leader of the trio.[10][11] Justice Lori Wilbur wrote, "Throughout the evening, Poage begged for his life and repeatedly asked the men why they were hurting him...In contrast to his statements of remorse at this sentencing hearing, Piper bragged when he told his friends and cellmate about the events of the evening."[10]
The events started after Poage’s family left on vacation. Piper, Page and Hoadley kidnapped him at gunpoint. They proceeded to knock Poage out, tie him up, beat him, stab him and strip him. They then pushed him into a stream and stepped on his neck, attempting to drown him. He finally died when they dropped rocks the size of basketballs on his head. His body was not discovered until weeks later.[10]
On top of it all, they also stole items, including electronics, from his mother’s home, after Poage offered them in exchange for setting him free.[11]
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley hailed the decision to affirm Piper’s sentence. He stated, “Allan Poage's family has waited almost 14 years in their search for justice. Affirming the legality of Piper's conviction puts our criminal justice system a significant step closer to carrying out the jury's sentence.”[10]
It is not necessarily over, however. Jackley mentioned that Piper may still file further appeals in state and federal courts.[10] |
|
News from Alaska
|
Alaskan mayor may veto labor law, court rules
Court: Alaska Third District
|
|---|
| The mayor of Anchorage, Alaska has the power to veto the date of a referendum vote, according to Superior Court Judge Erin Marston of the Third Judicial District. The case centers around a labor law called The Responsible Labor Act or, AO-37, which would decrease union power in the City of Anchorage.[12]
The act was scheduled for a referendum vote in April of 2014. The controversy has centered around that election date, as both sides try to schedule the election at a time that would be politically advantageous for them. Mayor Dan Sullivan vetoed the original April date, preferring the vote to be held in the next state election in November 2014, or with the April 2015 mayoral election. He says that these elections, which have greater voter turnout, would allow more citizens the chance to voice their opinion. Following the court ruling, he stated:
| “
|
…[W]e'll remain strong in our conviction that elections of significant community interest are best conducted when voter turnout is proven to be significantly larger.[13][4]
|
”
|
According to the Anchorage Daily News, the April date poses problems for Sullivan and some of his allies in the Assembly because it would "have the side effect of driving pro-union -- and anti-Sullivan -- turnout to Assembly races, putting the re-election bids of at least one of the mayor's allies, Adam Trombley, at risk."[13]
At issue in this case was whether or not the mayor had the authority to veto administrative moves by the Assembly, such as setting election dates. Judge Marston ruled that the mayor's veto power was not that limited. She said,
| “
|
No case law in this state exists that has created an administrative exception to the mayoral veto and no express provision restricts the mayor's veto authority.[13][4]
|
”
|
An override of the veto by the Assembly is possible, but does not seem likely. |
|
|
News from Florida
|
Premeditated murder for fun
Court: Florida Supreme Court
|
|---|
| David Kelsey Sparre, a 22-year-old Florida man, slashed a woman 89 times to her death. His reasoning: he simply wanted to know what it was like. What's worse, he said he enjoyed it. For this heinous crime, Sparre has been sentenced to death by Judge Elizabeth Senterfitt on the recommendation of a grand jury.[14]
Sparre had responded to a Craigslist.org ad posted by Tiara Pool, who became the victim of Sparre's murderous curiosity. Sparre claimed in a letter to his ex-girlfriend--and mother of his child--that he "enjoyed" the murder and hoped to do it again.[15]
Judge Senterfitt said in a statement at the original hearing:
| “
|
You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida you have forfeited your right to live at all.[16][4]
|
”
|
His attorney has now taken the case to the Florida Supreme Court to appeal the sentence. The verdict will remain unchallenged, but Nada Carey, Sparre's public defender, argues that it was improper to sentence death without considering Sparre's mental stability and history of substance abuse.[14] Sparre's sanity and mental health challenge does not necessarily allow him an avenue back into society, but it could spare him a lethal injection.
This is not the only case in which an individual has been lured into a snare through Craigslist. Richard Beasley of Ohio had was also sentenced to death for the murder of three men who he ambushed with bogus Craigslist job postings.[17] Another Craigslist murder in Minnesota led to the death penalty, and the state's supreme court threw out an appeal that the lower court did not consider the perpetrator's Asperger's syndrome.[18] In Florida, a woman was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of a companion she met over Craigslist.[19] |
|
News from Wisconsin
|
Wisconsin man receives 15 years for second-degree reckless homicide
Court: Eau Claire County Circuit Court, Wisconsin
|
|---|
| Eau Claire County Circuit Court Judge Paul Lenz sentenced Larry Fernandez to 15 years in prison on January 14, 2014 for the strangulation death of Frederick “Brian” Harvey, 52.[20] The sentence was part of a plea deal where Fernandez, 46, pled "no contest" to second-degree reckless homicide for the maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and 10 years of extended supervision. Earlier, Fernandez had plead not guilty to felony counts of first-degree intentional homicide and hiding a corpse, charges that were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. Fernandez’s jury trial had been scheduled for February 17.[20]
Harvey’s family reported him missing on August 28, 2012, and police confirmed the last public sighting of Harvey was at a local convenience store on August 13.[20] Police reports indicate that the murder occurred during an argument about money. Witnesses told officers that Fernandez strangled Harvey with a belt at Harvey’s mobile home.[21] Police then said that Fernandez hid Harvey’s body on rural property in Rusk County, Wisconsin.[20] Three other men have been charged in Rusk County with assisting Fernandez in hiding Harvey’s body.[22]
During the hearing, Fernandez declined to comment. He will be credited with 462 days served in jail, and be required to pay around $19,000 in restitution to Harvey’s family. Fernandez will also pay over $6,000 for damage to the Eau Claire County Jail after assaulting another inmate, ripping a table off the wall of his cell, having an altercation with jailers and threatening to kill two Eau Claire police detectives.[22] As part of his plea agreement, Fernandez will not be allowed to be in contact with Harvey’s family as well as specific law enforcement agents.
Robin Gydesen, Brian Harvey’s sister, stated in court: “This tragedy must be a catalyst for change. My brother was given a death sentence by the defendant. He so self-righteously chose to play judge jury and executioner.”[21] |
|
News from Connecticut
|
Appellate Court says Boy Scouts not liable for scoutmaster’s behavior
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
|
|---|
The Connecticut Appellate Court ruled on January 14, 2013 that the Boy Scouts of America and a local Boy Scout chapter in Connecticut are not liable for the actions of a former scout leader who molested a boy. A three judge panel of the court upheld the ruling on a 3-0 vote. Judge Douglas S. Lavine wrote in the decision:
| “
|
As regrettable and tragic as the circumstances of this case are for the plaintiff, we agree with the trial court that the defendants were not in control of the situation and that Harris is the person responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, not the defendants. . .[23][4]
|
”
|
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff's mother began dating a coworker, whom she later married, in 1999. The plaintiff’s stepfather, James W. Harris, III, was an assistant scoutmaster for a Boy Scout troop, and the plaintiff was a Cub Scout. The two went on a camping trip to a Boy Scout camp in upstate New York in 2001. This is when the plaintiff indicated the abuse began.[24]
According to the plaintiff, he was sexually abused by Harris between 2001 and 2007. Some instances of abuse took place during Boy Scout events such as camping trips, however, others took place in the family's home or in Harris' vehicle. On June 14, 2007, after Harris and the plaintiff had a fight, the plaintiff told his girlfriend about the abuse. The police were called and Harris was ultimately arrested. Before this time, the plaintiff had never told anyone he was being abused by Harris. When the local Boy Scout troop learned, from the newspaper, that Harris had been arrested, they banned him from ever serving as a volunteer with the group.[24]
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in September 2009 against the national and local Boy Scouts organizations and his stepfather, James Harris. The Boy Scouts filed a motion for summary judgment in Connecticut Superior Court on April 30, 2013.[24] Judge Carl J. Schuman found the national and local Boy Scouts organizations had no duty to protect the plaintiff and granted the motion on August 16, 2012.[24] Attorneys for the plaintiff filed a motion with the court to reargue their motion for summary judgment, which was denied. In their appeal of the trial court’s ruling, attorneys for the plaintiff cited several cases which they claimed supported their request to reargue the motion. However, a footnote in the Appellate Court's decision noted,
| “
|
The only thread that binds [the] Coville, Grenier, and Gutierrez [cases] to the facts of this case is that each plaintiff suffered a loss of tragic proportion.[24][4]
|
”
|
In March 2009, Harris entered a plea of guilty to charges that he sexually assaulted the plaintiff and two others. He is serving 15 years in prison. In addition to the Boy Scouts, the plaintiff also sued Harris and the claim against him has not yet been resolved .[23] |
|
|
