Court to reconsider case of Super Bowl threat
Criminal Law
A federal appeals court will reconsider the case of an Arizona man accused of planning a massacre at the 2008 Super Bowl before changing his mind.
Kurt Havelock was convicted in 2008 of mailing threatening messages, but a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction last year.
The panel's decision is now void, and the full 11-judge court will consider the conviction anew.
Authorities alleged that Havelock bought an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition, and wanted to kill people at the 2008 Super Bowl in Glendale.
The documents say Havelock was armed when he reached a parking lot near University of Phoenix Stadium but had a change of heart.
Havelock called his parents, who persuaded him to turn himself in.
Related listings
-
Court for Fla. woman charged in husband's NY death
Criminal Law 05/06/2011Federal prosecutors have been turning up the heat on a Florida woman accused of arranging the 2009 killings of her millionaire husband and mother-in-law. Narcy Novack of Fort Lauderdale and her brother, Cristobal Veliz of Brooklyn, N.Y., are due in c...
-
NY man pleads guilty in 2005 samurai sword slaying
Criminal Law 05/03/2011A man about to start a second trial for the 2005 samurai sword slaying of his sleeping stepfather, whom he had accused of sexually molesting him, pleaded guilty Monday to manslaughter.Zachary Gibian, 24, will be sentenced later this month to 25 years...
-
More psych evaluation in castration killing case
Criminal Law 05/02/2011A doctor will pay a second visit to a Portuguese model accused of castrating and killing a TV journalist in a Times Square hotel before his lawyer decides whether to pursue a psychiatric defense in the attack. A psychiatrist visited Renato Seabra thi...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.