An innocent resident of the US state of Kansas received enormous compensation and became rich after spending 23 years in prison on a wrongful conviction.

In 1994, the 17-year-old Lamonte McIntyre was sentenced to life imprisonment for double murder, which he did not commit, and spent more than 8.5 thousand days behind bars. In October 2017, the Wyandot County Court reviewed the case and MacIntyre was rehabilitated.

The sentence review process began in 2009 at the initiative of the Kansas Attorney’s Office. During the hearing, it was established, among other things, that the prosecution put pressure on the witnesses in 1994, forcing them to give false testimonies and identify the shooter at McIntyre. Along with this, it turned out that the then detective was very likely to “declare a hunt” for African Americans on the basis of racism, and the presiding judge and prosecutor were in a romantic relationship.

The man was released in 2018. “It took me too long. This is too much for anyone to pay. I would rather just live my life. I no longer have the time to feel something like anger, ” said MacIntyre, leaving the courtroom after the acquittal.

In 2019, a 43-year-old man filed a lawsuit against the state of Kansas in accordance with the Erroneous Conviction Act, which gives illegal convicts the opportunity to receive monetary compensation.

On February 24, the office of the Attorney General decided on the case and decided to pay McIntyre $ 1.5 million. He was also granted a certificate of innocence. Case materials and DNA information will now be destroyed, and he will be able to start life from scratch.

In addition to money, the American will have full access to the health care program for two years and can rely on full tuition.

McIntyre commented on the consequences of the unlawful charge: “Kansas took 23 years of my life and gave me nothing in return. The state took my youth. “He took every birthday and Christmas with his family, and even in difficult times, when they needed me, I could not be with them.”

Once at liberty, the illegally convicted person founded the non-profit organization Miracle of Innocence, which helps those who find themselves in a similar situation.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, in turn, noted that the authorities “are trying to conscientiously comply with state laws,” and the resolution of the situation with a man who spent 23 years in prison wrongly confirms this. “In the end, we were able to resolve all issues by satisfying the requirements of the law, and came to an agreement,” the agency’s press release said.

Picture Credit: Unsplash

The post A Wrongfully Convicted Man Will Receive $1.5 Million appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Several dozens of states, cities, and community groups joined the judicial struggle against the Trump administration, saying the issue was inappropriate in a census that should count every person living in the United States, regardless of his status.

The US Census Bureau did not ask for citizenship for 70 years, although in 1950 it was asked where all family members were born. If someone was born outside the United States, they were asked if they were naturalized citizens.

Opponents of the question claim that it would entail the refusal of some groups of the population to participate in the census. And this, in turn, may lead to an unaccounted number of immigrants and color communities, which will have serious consequences for the distribution of federal funding over the next decade.

Counting the population determines how many seats in the Congress and the votes in the Electoral College each state receives. It also determines the allocation of approximately $ 880 billion per year to states and local communities to pay for Medicare, schools, and other public services.

Picture Credit: PublicDomainPictures

The post Justices to Decide Whether ’20 Census Can Ask About Citizenship appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

“I remember they brought a young man who was accused of carrying a weapon. “He never had a weapon with him, your honor!” “OK let’s see”.

We went to his Facebook page and the first thing we came across was a photo of a child holding pistols and smiling widely. For the most part, everything you post online is in the public domain. If you say: “This is not my photo”, then this issue will need to be resolved in advance before the jury sees the photo. How can you prove that you are not in the photo? Or vice versa? Well, the photo was published from this account. And the account belongs to you.

Sometimes there are cases when someone publishes your photo in their own home – and you really wouldn’t want someone to see it. Suppose you have a drunk driving trial in progress. And in the photo it is very clearly visible that you were drunk, and the date coincides with the time when you were stopped on the road while drunk. And in this case, you do not have the right to indignation. You cannot appeal to the fact that you were filmed without asking.

You were in a public place. People just wanted to capture the moment. If you accidentally hit the shot while committing a crime, then everything is very bad. This photo is a clear proof of your guilt, and it is useless to deny it.

The ban on the use of illegally obtained data is used mainly in the law enforcement environment. It does not apply to a civilian. If you are stupid enough to let other people catch you at the crime scene, everything is very bad for you.

Picture Credit: Alexas_Fotos

The post Here’s How Social Media Can Be Used Against You In Court appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

They were supposed to be delivered to the Mexican border town of Tijuana on January 25, but observers did not notice the arrival of migrants in the city that day, Voice of America reports.

Mexican officials have officially declared their willingness to take care of those who are waiting in their territory for asylum in the United States. At the same time, Mexico nevertheless expressed dissatisfaction with the “one-sided” decision of the United States to send asylum seekers back to Mexico for the duration of their cases. Given the situation in the US immigration courts, asylum cases can take several months or even years.

“The government of Mexico does not agree with the unilateral decision of the government of the United States. However, we confirm that our government supports migrants and protects human rights, ”said Roberto Velasco, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico.

The local authorities of Tijuana expressed dissatisfaction with such a policy. The mayor of Tijuana called on the central government to shoulder the financial burden of maintaining migrants.

According to the previously existing rules, if the US government accepted asylum requests, the immigrants who submitted them were allowed to stay in the United States pending a decision on their cases, they were often detained for a waiting period, but kept in the US. Since January 25, this policy has changed, the Donald Trump administration unilaterally, without consulting with the Mexican authorities, decided to send asylum seekers to await decisions on their cases in Tijuana.

However, in the border cities of Mexico migrants suffer from attacks by criminal gangs. Cases of murder, kidnapping demanding ransom or forced labor for criminal cartels are known.

Representatives of the Democratic Party in Congress criticized the new Trump administration policy.

“The Trump administration has set about to destroy the asylum system, which appeared in response to the horrors of World War II, in order to provide victims of reprisals an opportunity to ask the government for shelter,” said Senator Dian Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nedler, representing the US Democratic Party.

Picture Credit: geralt

The post US set to send first group of asylum seekers back to Mexico appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

“Just as we cannot“ make laws from the bench, ”the executive cannot make decisions from the Oval Office,” wrote district judge Jay Bibi, a conservative nominated by President George W. Bush.

The new rules proposed by Trump prohibit seeking asylum to anyone who crosses the US-Mexican border outside official checkpoints – a reaction to the caravans of migrants from Central America.

Lower courts have stated that federal law does not allow the president to make such changes. The statute states that an application for asylum must be received from any alien who “is physically located in the United States or arriving in the United States, regardless of whether he is at the indicated checkpoint or not, regardless of the status of such a foreigner.”

Trump called US District Judge John Tyghar “Obama Judge” when he blocked the innovation on December 19, and then refused to immediately restore it. This provoked a reproach against Trump from Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who defended the independence of the federal judiciary.

Lee Gelert of the American Civil Liberties Union, representing those who challenge these rules, said in a briefing at the trial that this policy cannot be justified, adding that this is fundamentally unfair to those who have legitimate asylum applications.

According to him, “those who flee from persecution are desperate and most often unsophisticated, are not aware of the possibility of applying for asylum at the point of entry, are persecuted by gangs and individuals and therefore cannot reach these ports because of the danger and distance “.

Recall that on Thursday, the US Department of Homeland Security announced a new policy that prohibits asylum seekers from entering the US and is demanding that a decision be expected in Mexico.

Also two weeks ago, Donald Trump offered to charge $ 50 from anyone who wants to seek asylum in the United States.

Picture Credit: Matt Schwartz

The post U.S. Supreme Court denies Trump’s ban on asylum for illegal migrants appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood said that during the investigation they revealed a “shocking pattern regarding the Trump Foundation — including illegal political coordination with his presidential campaign,” RTVi writes.

The remaining $ 1.75 million will be handed over to other charitable organizations, which will be approved by the State Office and the judge. “This is an important victory for the principle of the rule of law, which shows that for all there is one set of rules,” the prosecutor general added.

The largest donation in the history of the fund – $ 264 thousand. The sum was donated by the private non-profit organization Central Park Conservancy in 1989 and, as the newspaper notes, benefited Trump’s business – it went to the restoration of the fountain near the Trump Plaza hotel.

The smallest donation was in the same year from the boy scouts, in the amount of $ 7. And it also benefited the Trump family, WP writes. That was exactly how much it cost to enroll a boy in scouts that year, and it was then that Trump’s son Donald Jr. was 11 years old (at that age they are taking boy scouts).

Underwood’s investigation also revealed that Trump’s children, Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka were employees of the foundation, but have not held a board of directors meeting since 1999. Allen Weisselberg, the treasurer of the fund and the head of the Trump Organization, told investigators that he did not know that he was on the board.

In June of this year, Underwood filed a lawsuit against US President Donald Trump, his three children, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, accusing them of illegal activities for more than ten years. The lawsuit also demanded compensation for the city in the amount of $ 2.8 million.

According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, the fund’s employees repeatedly made deals in the personal and business interests of Donald Trump. In response, Trump said he was not going to satisfy this claim.

Picture Credit: quinntheislander

The post Trump Foundation to dissolve under court supervision appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.

Initiative Trump supported by five judges, four opposed.

The court found that this rule is not discrimination based on religion and does not violate the constitution of the country. “We do not express views on the validity of the policy,” said the head of the court, John Roberts, quoting Reuters.

He added that the government sufficiently substantiated the ban on considerations of national security, the decree was issued within the framework of the powers of the executive branch, and any president could accept it. The decision of the Supreme Court means that the decrees of the lower courts that have blocked this decree become invalid.

Donald Trump was pleased with the decision of the court. “The Supreme Court upheld the ban on entry.”, He wrote on Twitter.

The first immigration decree Trump, signed immediately after his assumption of office, was blocked by the judges. The second anti-immigration decree Trump signed in March 2017, but he also became the subject of litigation. In June of the same year, the US Supreme Court partially authorized its application for a period of 90 days.

After the decree became invalid, in September Trump signed another, already a third option of the ban, but in October he was also blocked. According to the latest decree, entry to the United States is banned for most citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Trump argued for the need for this ban considerations of national security.

Picture Credit: kalhh

The post Supreme Court Removes Block on Trump’s Travel Ban appeared first on Criminal Lawyer Profiles.