I found the resurfacing of this case to be interesting, particularly in light of the text regarding jurisdiction issues internationally. I was surprised to learn that so many extradition possibilities were ignored by countries with whom the US has relationships with that would allow this. Also moderately surprising I found was Polanski's ability to legally fight extradition to the US. I would have thought that this would have had to have been filed and desired by the country holding Polanski, not him personally. I will be curious to find if the 'refusal to be extradited' is upheld by the Swiss government, whose authorities arrested Polanski. A last point I found surprising about this story was that CA governor would be the person who could issue a pardon. Truly a morass of jurisdictions.
ZURICH—An attorney for Roman Polanski said the Academy Award-winning director plans to fight extradition to the U.S. from Switzerland, where he was arrested over the weekend on a 31-year-old warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
The arrest and possible extradition opened a diplomatic row in Europe as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner pressed the Swiss to free Mr. Polanski, calling his detention "a bit sinister." Mr. Kouchner and Poland's foreign ministry were considering a joint request to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to seek a pardon for Mr. Polanski.
The Los Angeles district attorney's office said that it planned to pursue extradition through the U.S. Department of Justice. A U.S. law-enforcement official said Monday that preparing such a request can take weeks. According to the U.S. treaty with Switzerland, Mr. Polanski can be detained by Swiss authorities for up to 60 days while U.S. authorities file the extradition request. Either side could appeal the outcome.
Hervé Temime, one of Mr. Polanski's Paris-based lawyers, issued a statement Monday saying that his client plans to fight any request to send him back to the U.S. "Mr. Polanski has refused to be extradited," Mr. Temime said in the statement. "Considering the outrageous circumstances of his arrest, his Swiss lawyer will immediately request his release, possibly under certain conditions. His lawyers also emphasize that any extradition request is illegal," the statement said. In addition to his French lawyers, Mr. Polanski has retained counsel in Zurich.
A spokeswoman for the Justice department had no comment on the statement by Mr. Polanski's lawyers.
The arrest added a new chapter to the long-running legal saga of a celebrated but controversial film-industry figure. Mr. Polanski, director of the films "Chinatown" and "Rosemary's Baby," fled the U.S. in 1978 after being convicted in California on one count of having sex with an underage girl. After fleeing the U.S., Mr. Polanski took up residence in France, where he was born to Polish parents.
Roman Polanski, right, with his attorney in a Santa Monica, Calif., courtroom in August 1977, after the film director entered a guilty plea to having sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.
As part of an appeal filed earlier this year, Mr. Polanski's lawyers argued that the Los Angeles district attorney's office had not made serious efforts to extradite Mr. Polanski. But a spokeswoman said the district attorney's office has made attempts to have Mr. Polanski arrested since 1978, and requested countries from Canada to Thailand arrest Mr. Polanski when authorities learned of his travel plans.
In some cases, Mr. Polanski changed his travel plans, the spokeswoman said. In other cases, foreign governments did not make the arrest. During a 2007 trip to Israel, for example, the Israeli government requested additional details from the district attorney. "By the time the information arrived, Polanski had left Israel and was not arrested," according to a timeline of events provided by the district attorney.
Mr. Polanski's decision to fight extradition opened the door to another long legal battle to decide his fate. He could have opted to return to California in the hope that his conviction would be dismissed. Earlier this year, he appealed his conviction in a California court, arguing that the judge who heard his case was guilty of misconduct. The court acknowledged "substantial misconduct" by the presiding judge in the original 1978 case, but refused to rule on any appeal as long as Mr. Polanski was on the run.
Swiss authorities have defended their move to arrest Mr. Polanski, saying that they were bound by an extradition treaty with the U.S. to respect a valid request. During a visit in France Monday, Swiss Economy Minister Doris Leuthard said, "The Americans are convinced of the necessity to arrest Polanski. It was up to them."
Seeking a pardon for Mr. Polanski would open a new political conundrum with a uniquely Hollywood twist. Because Mr. Polanski has been convicted of a state crime, a pardon would have to come from the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a former actor.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125413187268245957.html
Thursday, October 1, 2009
No Legal Shield in Drug Labeling, Justices Rule
As someone who works in a pharmaceutical-related industry, I found this article to be interesting and a little disconcerting. It seems that the safety of drugs, etc. being left ot juries rather than the FDA leaves room for potentially underinformed decisions. Each massive lawsuit levied against pharmaceutical companies makes it increasingly difficult for new drugs to make it to the market at all. I see that the public needs to be protected from products that are known risks, but question the rationale of allowing litigation to be decided by a jury of people not versed in scientific implications beyond the arguments painted for them by counsels. And their charisma. As a side note, Wyeth ceased to exist as an entity today.
WASHINGTON — In a major setback for business groups that had hoped to build a barrier against injury lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators.
The ruling could have significant implications beyond drug manufacturing. Many companies have sought tighter federal regulation in recent years in part to shield themselves from litigation.
The court, by a 6-to-3 vote, upheld a jury verdict of $6.7 million in favor of a musician from Vermont whose arm had to be amputated after she was injected with an antinausea drug. The drug’s manufacturer, Wyeth, had argued that its compliance with the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements should immunize it from lawsuits.
Pharmaceutical companies were especially disappointed by Wednesday’s decision.
Ronald Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said, “We believe state courts should not be second-guessing the doctors and scientists at the F.D.A.”
Merck was hit with several huge damage awards over its painkiller Vioxx before agreeing to a $4.85 billion settlement in 2007. Allowing juries to make determinations about drug risks, Mr. Rogers said, would cause “mass confusion.”
The Supreme Court has been sympathetic in recent years to arguments that federal law should pre-empt state injury suits. Last year, in Riegel v. Medtronic, an eight-justice majority of the court ruled that many state suits concerning injuries caused by medical devices were barred by the express language in a federal law. Wednesday’s decision addressed implied pre-emption, a different legal standard.
Drug companies and other businesses, supported by the Bush administration, had hoped the Vermont case would establish broader protections. They relied not on express language in a statute enacted by Congress, as in Riegel, but on what might be implied from federal regulatory standards and policies — in this case, from the drug agency’s authority to approve drug labels.
Producers of goods as different as antifreeze, fireworks, popcorn, cigarettes and light bulbs have sought to take refuge behind federal oversight in recent years to fend off litigation. After Wednesday’s decision, those efforts are most likely to succeed if they are based on express language in a Congressional statute or a specific regulatory action that makes compliance with state requirements impossible.
“This narrows the playing field,” for implied pre-emption arguments, Mark Herrmann, a corporate defense lawyer in Chicago, said of the decision. “This does not eliminate the playing field.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/washington/05scotus.html
WASHINGTON — In a major setback for business groups that had hoped to build a barrier against injury lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators.
The ruling could have significant implications beyond drug manufacturing. Many companies have sought tighter federal regulation in recent years in part to shield themselves from litigation.
The court, by a 6-to-3 vote, upheld a jury verdict of $6.7 million in favor of a musician from Vermont whose arm had to be amputated after she was injected with an antinausea drug. The drug’s manufacturer, Wyeth, had argued that its compliance with the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements should immunize it from lawsuits.
Pharmaceutical companies were especially disappointed by Wednesday’s decision.
Ronald Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said, “We believe state courts should not be second-guessing the doctors and scientists at the F.D.A.”
Merck was hit with several huge damage awards over its painkiller Vioxx before agreeing to a $4.85 billion settlement in 2007. Allowing juries to make determinations about drug risks, Mr. Rogers said, would cause “mass confusion.”
The Supreme Court has been sympathetic in recent years to arguments that federal law should pre-empt state injury suits. Last year, in Riegel v. Medtronic, an eight-justice majority of the court ruled that many state suits concerning injuries caused by medical devices were barred by the express language in a federal law. Wednesday’s decision addressed implied pre-emption, a different legal standard.
Drug companies and other businesses, supported by the Bush administration, had hoped the Vermont case would establish broader protections. They relied not on express language in a statute enacted by Congress, as in Riegel, but on what might be implied from federal regulatory standards and policies — in this case, from the drug agency’s authority to approve drug labels.
Producers of goods as different as antifreeze, fireworks, popcorn, cigarettes and light bulbs have sought to take refuge behind federal oversight in recent years to fend off litigation. After Wednesday’s decision, those efforts are most likely to succeed if they are based on express language in a Congressional statute or a specific regulatory action that makes compliance with state requirements impossible.
“This narrows the playing field,” for implied pre-emption arguments, Mark Herrmann, a corporate defense lawyer in Chicago, said of the decision. “This does not eliminate the playing field.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/washington/05scotus.html
Inquirer’s Future In Court Right Now
With the economy the way it stands as of now even newspapers are in question. Isn't this crazy? So many people read newspapers each day and I think the Inquirer is one of the most popular. I was not that interested in reading the newspaper until last semester when I took a political science course where we had to read a paper every week. By doing this it really became interesting and I learned how important it is to know whats going on not only around you but internationally also. I hope it all works out well.
PHILADELPHIA - The fate of Philadelphia’s two biggest newspapers is being settled in court this afternoon.
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen Raslavich is hearing arguments about who can bid for the assets of the Inquirer, Daily News, Philly.com and some smaller publications at an upcoming auction.
Raslavich will decide if senior lenders can bid with money owed to them by publisher Brian Tierney’s current ownership group, Philadelphia Newspapers LLC.
Philadelphia Newspapers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2009 in an effort to restructure its $390 million debt load.
If Raslavich allows such a “credit bid,” senior creditors would be able use $300 million they are owed in the auction and force Tierney out of the company, if they have the winning bid.
Tierney has put together a new investment group that has made a bid for the bankrupt company valued at $92 million.
Local investors led by Tierney bought the media company in 2006 for $515 million. But the value is now below $100 million given industry declines and the current company’s debt burden.
The senior creditors have repeatedly said they want Tierney out of the business and want any new owners to keep some debt on the company’s books.
David Haas, Bruce Toll and the Carpenters’ Union have combined with Tierney to battle the creditors who financed Tierney’s acquisition of Philadelphia Newspapers in 2006.
Senior creditors are preparing their own bid, which would keep $60 million in existing debt on the company books.
They would replace Tierney with a management team that includes former Inquirer publisher Bob Hall.
Newspaper workers signed a one-month contract extension at the end of August.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/100109_Philadelphia_Newspapers_Inc_Bankruptcy
PHILADELPHIA - The fate of Philadelphia’s two biggest newspapers is being settled in court this afternoon.
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stephen Raslavich is hearing arguments about who can bid for the assets of the Inquirer, Daily News, Philly.com and some smaller publications at an upcoming auction.
Raslavich will decide if senior lenders can bid with money owed to them by publisher Brian Tierney’s current ownership group, Philadelphia Newspapers LLC.
Philadelphia Newspapers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2009 in an effort to restructure its $390 million debt load.
If Raslavich allows such a “credit bid,” senior creditors would be able use $300 million they are owed in the auction and force Tierney out of the company, if they have the winning bid.
Tierney has put together a new investment group that has made a bid for the bankrupt company valued at $92 million.
Local investors led by Tierney bought the media company in 2006 for $515 million. But the value is now below $100 million given industry declines and the current company’s debt burden.
The senior creditors have repeatedly said they want Tierney out of the business and want any new owners to keep some debt on the company’s books.
David Haas, Bruce Toll and the Carpenters’ Union have combined with Tierney to battle the creditors who financed Tierney’s acquisition of Philadelphia Newspapers in 2006.
Senior creditors are preparing their own bid, which would keep $60 million in existing debt on the company books.
They would replace Tierney with a management team that includes former Inquirer publisher Bob Hall.
Newspaper workers signed a one-month contract extension at the end of August.
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/100109_Philadelphia_Newspapers_Inc_Bankruptcy
State Supreme Court Decision Turns On Absence Of Causation Proof
While reading similar examples and articles about this particular causation case, I wanted to look further and came across this interesting article...
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision recently, reminding us of the importance of fully developing the causation case, in addition to the response to plaintiff's defect allegations. Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, 2009 WL 2871172 (Ind. September 8, 2009).
The plaintiffs alleged their son was given a fatal overdose of pain medication by a nurse after a surgical procedure. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturers and distributors of the medicine cup used to administer the medication, alleging that defects in design of the cup made it unsuitable for the precise measurements necessary for drugs, and alleging a failure to warn that the cup was not suitable for precision measurement. The interior of the cup bore translucent markings to measure its contents, and graduations delineated both 15 and 30 mL. The nurse had used that type of cup frequently, both at this surgical center and at other hospitals, and she had no difficulty reading its markings. The nurse testified she filled the cup approximately half-way and administered 15 mL of medication to plaintiff's decedent. According to decedent's father, however, who was present when the drug was administered, the nurse gave the son a full cup of medicine.
So, as is frequently the case, a potential malpractice claim is turned into a product liability claim against an ostensibly deeper pocket, unencumbered by med mal tort reform restrictions.
The plaintiffs presented expert evidence opining that the cup was defective in design and warnings, evidence that was challenged by the defense. Plaintiffs also argued that if the medicine cup had been better suited as a precision measuring device or had contained a warning that it was not suitable for precision measurement, the decedent would not have received an overdose -- the alleged causal link. The court did not have to reach the issues surrounding the alleged defects and the expert affidavit which plaintiffs had put forward to support their theory of defect, because the facts established that there was no such causal connection. The results of an autopsy revealed that the decedent had more than twice the recommended therapeutic level of codeine in his blood stream. The undisputed evidence thus demonstrated that if there was an overdose in this case, it was not caused by an imprecise measurement of medication attributable to less than readily discernible marks. (The plaintiff expert had estimated that the cup's imprecision could result in up to a 20% to 30% margin of error.) Rather, if the drug was the medical cause of the death, it was due to an erroneous, double dosage; the accident therefore cannot be attributed in a legal cause sense to any alleged defects in the cup itself.
Plaintiffs tried to then rely on the "read-and-heed" presumption -- i.e., the notion in some jurisdictions that the jury can presume that if an adequate warning had been given it would have been heeded. Such a presumption may aid a defendant when a warning was given. Plaintiffs often try to use the presumption to attempt to clear the causation hurdle when no warning is given. But the presumption does not completely dispose of the causation issue in a failure-to-warn case, said the court. The most the presumption does is establish that a warning would have been read and obeyed. It does not necessarily establish that the defect in fact caused the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff invoking the presumption must still show that the danger which allegedly would have been prevented by an appropriate warning was the danger that actually materialized in the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiffs could not show that element, given the circumstances of the drug usage. The judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the cup defendants was affirmed.
http://www.masstortdefense.com/2009/09/articles/state-supreme-court-decision-turns-on-absence-of-causation-proof/
The Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision recently, reminding us of the importance of fully developing the causation case, in addition to the response to plaintiff's defect allegations. Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, 2009 WL 2871172 (Ind. September 8, 2009).
The plaintiffs alleged their son was given a fatal overdose of pain medication by a nurse after a surgical procedure. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturers and distributors of the medicine cup used to administer the medication, alleging that defects in design of the cup made it unsuitable for the precise measurements necessary for drugs, and alleging a failure to warn that the cup was not suitable for precision measurement. The interior of the cup bore translucent markings to measure its contents, and graduations delineated both 15 and 30 mL. The nurse had used that type of cup frequently, both at this surgical center and at other hospitals, and she had no difficulty reading its markings. The nurse testified she filled the cup approximately half-way and administered 15 mL of medication to plaintiff's decedent. According to decedent's father, however, who was present when the drug was administered, the nurse gave the son a full cup of medicine.
So, as is frequently the case, a potential malpractice claim is turned into a product liability claim against an ostensibly deeper pocket, unencumbered by med mal tort reform restrictions.
The plaintiffs presented expert evidence opining that the cup was defective in design and warnings, evidence that was challenged by the defense. Plaintiffs also argued that if the medicine cup had been better suited as a precision measuring device or had contained a warning that it was not suitable for precision measurement, the decedent would not have received an overdose -- the alleged causal link. The court did not have to reach the issues surrounding the alleged defects and the expert affidavit which plaintiffs had put forward to support their theory of defect, because the facts established that there was no such causal connection. The results of an autopsy revealed that the decedent had more than twice the recommended therapeutic level of codeine in his blood stream. The undisputed evidence thus demonstrated that if there was an overdose in this case, it was not caused by an imprecise measurement of medication attributable to less than readily discernible marks. (The plaintiff expert had estimated that the cup's imprecision could result in up to a 20% to 30% margin of error.) Rather, if the drug was the medical cause of the death, it was due to an erroneous, double dosage; the accident therefore cannot be attributed in a legal cause sense to any alleged defects in the cup itself.
Plaintiffs tried to then rely on the "read-and-heed" presumption -- i.e., the notion in some jurisdictions that the jury can presume that if an adequate warning had been given it would have been heeded. Such a presumption may aid a defendant when a warning was given. Plaintiffs often try to use the presumption to attempt to clear the causation hurdle when no warning is given. But the presumption does not completely dispose of the causation issue in a failure-to-warn case, said the court. The most the presumption does is establish that a warning would have been read and obeyed. It does not necessarily establish that the defect in fact caused the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff invoking the presumption must still show that the danger which allegedly would have been prevented by an appropriate warning was the danger that actually materialized in the plaintiff's case.
Plaintiffs could not show that element, given the circumstances of the drug usage. The judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the cup defendants was affirmed.
http://www.masstortdefense.com/2009/09/articles/state-supreme-court-decision-turns-on-absence-of-causation-proof/
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Vague Terminology in Legislation
As an added note to a Wall Street Journal article it was also mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court also decided recently to hear the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project Case. The brief paragraph describes how the case is centered around the law that criminalizes providing "material support" to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco struck down "some provisions" of the law as too vague. Other portions were upheld.
Upon further research I am finding out that this lawsuit is one of three that have been filed by the group called the Humanitarian Law Project. This group has been active in similar court cases for a least a decade. I think that this more recent suit going to the Supreme Court involves the Patriot Act and the wording that defines "material support" to terrorists and "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists as being too vague. The second mentioned web page gives an interesting history of the case, going from District Court to Circuit Court, then back to District Court, and back to Circuit Court, and finally, both parties have filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court; and the case will be heard. Also, along the way during the time that the Circuit Court was hearing the case, Congress changed the wording on the Statute which caused it to be returned to the District Court.
Although I find the history of this case to be very interesting, it is important to understand that this lawsuit involves the law and enforcement of critical antiterrorist legislation in our society. I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully put this issue to rest with a more clear understanding, or we should legislate wording so that we can get on with the defense of our country.
http://online.wjs.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project
Upon further research I am finding out that this lawsuit is one of three that have been filed by the group called the Humanitarian Law Project. This group has been active in similar court cases for a least a decade. I think that this more recent suit going to the Supreme Court involves the Patriot Act and the wording that defines "material support" to terrorists and "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists as being too vague. The second mentioned web page gives an interesting history of the case, going from District Court to Circuit Court, then back to District Court, and back to Circuit Court, and finally, both parties have filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court; and the case will be heard. Also, along the way during the time that the Circuit Court was hearing the case, Congress changed the wording on the Statute which caused it to be returned to the District Court.
Although I find the history of this case to be very interesting, it is important to understand that this lawsuit involves the law and enforcement of critical antiterrorist legislation in our society. I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully put this issue to rest with a more clear understanding, or we should legislate wording so that we can get on with the defense of our country.
http://online.wjs.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project
Supreme Court to Hear Gun Case
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case banning handgun possession in Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The attorney who filed a suit in Washington D.C. has also filed this suit. The Washington D.C. case was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 when it struck down the ban on handguns in Washington D.C. Because D.C. is not a state, consideration from an 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision stating that the "Second Amendment placed no limits on the state authority" has not been challenged.
As I understand it, some think the Bill of Rights was written to protect states rights from an overpowering federal government. Othe people see the Second Amendment as an individual right; not a militia empowerment.
Previously, newly installed Justice Sonia Satomayor in a Second Circuit Court in New York upheld a state law restricting martial weapons. Given that the decision on the Washington case was a split 5-4 vote with two senior Justices producung conflicting evidence, this case is going to be monumental! Comments?
Initial Info seen on WSJ site http://online.wjs.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
As I understand it, some think the Bill of Rights was written to protect states rights from an overpowering federal government. Othe people see the Second Amendment as an individual right; not a militia empowerment.
Previously, newly installed Justice Sonia Satomayor in a Second Circuit Court in New York upheld a state law restricting martial weapons. Given that the decision on the Washington case was a split 5-4 vote with two senior Justices producung conflicting evidence, this case is going to be monumental! Comments?
Initial Info seen on WSJ site http://online.wjs.com/article/SB125432086519552597.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
China Reacts
I just recently viewed this article, China Strikes Back on Trade, in the wall street journal. To sum up the article apparently the O'bama administration has decided to implement a tariff on the lower-end made Chinese tires. Their decision is due primarily to an increase in Chinese imports. And in their reaction to this proposed tariff China decided to enforce a restriction on the U.S. imports of chicken and auto parts. Hopefully, this is not a deciding factor in how our future relationship will be progressing with China.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)