An Alaska man charged in a Florida airport shooting rampage is due in court for a hearing on his mental health problems.
Attorneys for 26-year-old Esteban Santiago of Anchorage, Alaska, say he's been diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, but they say he is competent to stand trial. The hearing Wednesday will delve into that.
Santiago is accused in the Jan. 6 shooting that killed five and wounded six at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Santiago's lawyers say he is taking an anti-psychotic drug and can communicate clearly, understand legal issues and is cooperative with jail staff. They say he is not disoriented or delusional.
Santiago previously told the FBI he acted under government mind control, then claimed inspiration by the Islamic State extremist group. Trial is scheduled for Oct. 2.
The Supreme Court is asking a lower court to take another look at a class action lawsuit brought by nearly 300 cable technicians that alleges their company encouraged workers to underreport overtime hours.
The justices said Monday that a federal appeals court should reconsider its decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed against cable installation firm FTS USA and its parent company, UniTek USA.
The companies argue that the district court should not have calculated damages for hundreds of workers by averaging the experiences of only 17 workers who testified.
A federal judge awarded the technicians $3.8 million after a jury found the company at fault. A federal appeals court said that award was too high, but rejected arguments that a single class action lawsuit was improper.
Arkansas' highest court on Thursday threw out a judge's ruling that could have allowed all married same-sex couples to get the names of both spouses on their children's birth certificates without a court order, saying it doesn't violate equal protection "to acknowledge basic biological truths."
The state Supreme Court also issued a rare admonishment to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox, saying he made "inappropriate remarks" in his ruling that struck down the birth certificate law. Fox had cited the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing gay marriage in his ruling last year that said married same-sex couples should have both names listed on their children's birth certificates, just as heterosexual married couples do, without requiring a court order.
In the state Supreme Court's decision Thursday, the justices sided with the state attorney general's office, saying Arkansas has a vested interest in listing biological parents on birth certificates.
"What is before this court is a narrow issue of whether the birth-certificate statutes as written deny the appellees due process," Justice Josephine Linker Hart wrote in the court's majority opinion. "...In the situation involving the female spouse of a biological mother, the female spouse does not have the same biological nexus to the child that the biological mother or the biological father has. It does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths."
Cheryl Maples, who sued on behalf of three same-sex couples, said she hasn't decided yet whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The three couples who sued were allowed to amend their children's birth certificates last year under a ruling issued by Fox.
The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear Arizona's appeal of a lower court ruling that overturned a convicted murderer's death sentence has opened the door for about 25 death row inmates to challenge their sentences.
The justices on Monday let stand the ruling that said Arizona unconstitutionally excluded evidence about James McKinney's troubled childhood and post-traumatic stress disorder that might have led to a lesser punishment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last December that Arizona's causal nexus rule violated the Constitution. The rule required any mitigating evidence, such as mental illness or post-traumatic stress disorder, to be directly tied to the crime committed to be relevant in sentencing.
A Spanish jury has found a Slovakian model guilty of murdering her millionaire ex-boyfriend by shooting the Briton twice in the head at his home near Marbella on the Costa del Sol two years ago.
The verdict against 26-year-old Maria Kukucova was handed down Friday after a trial this week in the southern city of Malaga.
Kukucova told the court she "never meant to hurt" Andrew Bush, saying that the former jewelry store owner died during a violent struggle.
Prosecutors say Kukucova shot 48-year-old Bush twice in the head and once in the shoulder on April 5, 2014.
Attorneys in federal cases stemming from crimes on American Indian reservations have new guidance on what's needed to prove a defendant is Indian.
Federal authorities have jurisdiction over major crimes on tribal land when the victim, suspect or both are American Indian. A two-part test determines who is Indian.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revised the first part of that test in an opinion Tuesday — no longer requiring that the degree of Indian blood be traced to a federally recognized tribe — and restored an Arizona man's 90-year sentence on assault and firearms charges.
The court said evidence at trial was enough to find Damien Zepeda is American Indian. Zepeda, an enrolled member of the Gila River Indian Community, disagreed.
"That's why it was so important to clarify that the proof in this case was sufficient," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who monitors the 9th Circuit. "This will lay down the rule for future prosecutors."
In 2013, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zepeda's bloodline of one-quarter Pima and one-quarter Tohono O'odham derived from an American Indian tribe recognized by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. It reversed all but one of nine convictions and ordered a lower court to resentence him.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a 66-year-old program that lets the government take raisins away from farmers to help reduce supply and boost market prices is unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said forcing raisin growers to give up part of their annual crop without full payment is an illegal confiscation of private property.
The ruling is a victory for California farmers Marvin and Laura Horne, who claimed they were losing money under a 1940s-era program they call outdated and ineffective. They were fined $695,000 for trying to get around the program.
A federal appeals court said the program was acceptable because the farmers benefited from higher market prices and didn't lose the entire value of their crop.
The government argued that the Hornes benefited from increased raisin prices, but their cause had won wide support from conservative groups opposed to government action that infringes on private property rights.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said the government must pay "just compensation" when it takes personal goods just as when it takes land away. He rejected the government's argument that the Hornes voluntarily chose to participate in the raisin market and have the option of selling different crops if they don't like it.