|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Lansdale woman can challenge terror law in poisoning case
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | kal |
| Last Edited | kal Jun 19, 2011 06:01pm |
| Logged |
1
[Older]
|
| Category | Legal Ruling |
| News Date | Sunday, June 19, 2011 11:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Lansdale woman who poisoned her husband's pregnant paramour can challenge her conviction under a terrorism law that has kept her in prison since 2007.
The case of Carol Anne Bond had been widely followed because it offered soap-opera facts, acts of judicial origami, and the application of a terror law in a romantic context.
The court's 9-0 decision affirms the right of individuals to challenge the constitutionality of certain federal laws. Bond's lawyers argue that a federal chemical-weapons law infringes on state powers reserved to Pennsylvania under the 10th Amendment.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia will now consider the merits of Bond's claim - that a spiteful and jilted spouse ought to be tried under state assault laws, not federal terrorism statutes.
"My client and I are very pleased that the Supreme Court recognized the rights of an individual to challenge an overreaching by the federal government," said Philadelphia lawyer Robert E. Goldman, who persuaded former U.S. Solicitor General Paul G. Clement to argue the case pro bono before the justices in February.
Thursday's Supreme Court opinion reversed a Third Circuit ruling that individuals cannot bring appeals involving states' rights.
The facts in Bond's case, one of a handful of local appeals to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in a decade, are undisputed.
And salacious.
|
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
