On Wednesday, Rupert Murdoch appeared before an inquiry investigating his relationship with the British political establishment. Murdoch is alleged to have used media conglomerate to influence British politicians and gain an advantage for his numerous British business interests.

Critics have accused the Murdoch-owned News of the World tabloid of hacking into the phones of high-profile public figures. Subsequent investigations into Murdoch’s activity have revealed a network of political contacts, resulting in outrage among the public and an official review of Britain’s regulatory policy regarding interaction with the press. It was a result of Murdoch’s close relationship with Britain’s political elite that his businesses were supposedly able to contravene regulations without consequence.

The full report from Reuters can be found here.

It remains to be seen what, if any, penalties Murdoch may face. Of course, it isn’t a crime simply to associate with influential public figures. Even if Murdoch has engaged in the politics of intimidation, as his detractors claim, it does not necessarily follow that he has committed criminal wrongdoing.

That said, it will be interesting to see how the outcome of the inquiry is reflected in the phone hacking scandal that forced one of his tabloids to close its doors.

Opening arguments have begun in the trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards. Edwards is alleged to have accepted nearly $1 million in illegal campaign contributions in order to hide an affair between Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a videographer who worked for his campaign.

While admitting that he had made a very serious mistake in carrying on the affair, he maintained that he is innocent of criminal wrongdoing regarding the alleged violations of campaign finance law.

The specifics, as related by the prosecution, involve several bills paid by donors in order to help Edwards avoid public scrutiny amid his presidential campaign and wife Elizabeth Edwards’ struggle with cancer. Hunter had given birth to a daughter in 2008. Edwards admitted that he was the child’s father in 2010.

Allison Van Laningham, Edwards’ defense attorney, argued that the affair “may be a sin, but it is not a federal election crime,” according to the Los Angeles Times. Van Laningham continued, urging the court to “[f]ollow the money” and suggesting that campaign aide Andrew Young sought to exploit Edwards’ situation for his own financial benefit.

Meanwhile, prosecutors attempted to portray Edwards as a dangerously ambitious politician who deliberately broke the law in order to deceive the public and thereby preserve his presidential aspirations. Young is expected to be among the most important witnesses for the prosecution’s case.

The full report from the Los Angeles Times can be found here.

The Edwards scandal has played itself out on the national stage, but the basic questions appear similar to those found in the more common cases of public corruption. Among the most significant is that posed by Van Laningham in her opening argument: who benefits? Young authored a book on the scandal; Van Laningham observed that Young is currently seeking a movie deal as well. In essence, Young has monetized his involvement in the situation. It will be interesting to see to what extent this casts doubt on his credibility.

In many instances, criminal cases do not actually go to trial. As part of a larger defense strategy, your attorney will attempt to get the charges dropped if possible, or to negotiate a plea agreement when appropriate. This is due in part to the difficulties involved in trying a case, which can be a time-consuming, resource-intensive, and tremendously stressful process. One of these difficulties lies in the selection of a jury.

The retrial of former MLB pitcher Roger Clemens is a case in point. Clemens faces accusations of perjury and obstruction of Congress in relation to the steroid scandal that attracted Congressional attention some years ago. Specifically, prosecutors say Clemens lied to Congress when testifying in 2008. Clemens claimed never to have used performance-enhancing drugs.

According to a report by CBS News, some prospective jurors questioned the need for another trial; one called it “a little bit ridiculous.” Another candidate, when asked about the original 2008 investigation, said that she “remember[ed] thinking it didn’t seem to be a great use of taxpayer money.” Both, however, made the cut, and will be called back for further interviews. The selection process became so bogged down that only 13 candidates had been interviewed at all, and just seven were asked to return.

One of the questions asked of prospective jurors may indicate the strategy Clemens’s attorney, Rusty Hardin, may have in mind. According to the report, Hardin asked the candidates whether they could “conceive of a situation in which somebody says something under oath that he believed to be true, which turns out not to be, without telling an intentional lie.”

For more information, see the CBS News article here.

Google has been fined $25,000 by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC’s report on the fine states that Google obstructed the agency’s investigation into the methods employed by the search giant to collect and store data, noting that requests for information were repeatedly ignored. In addition, an engineer subpoenaed by the FCC asserted his Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify.

The FCC will take no further action at this time.

The investigation targeted in particular Google’s Street View feature, which offers interactive, ground-level, 360-degree photographic panoramas in select locations, typically public roadways.

Google quickly issued a statement disputing the FCC’s complaint that the company had actively resisted the investigation and affirming that, according to the FCC’s own report, they had not committed any wrongdoing. An additional, formal response is forthcoming.

The Associated Press report, via The Washington Post, can be found here.

It is important to note that this fine does not imply that the FCC has reached any conclusions about Google’s practices as such; indeed, the FCC has admitted that “significant factual questions” remain to be answered. Rather, the problem seems to stem from a procedural dispute. The AP report does not specify what recourse Google has with respect to the fine, but given its increasingly frequent encounters with regulatory and legislative authorities, it will be interesting to see how it responds to the FCC’s allegations.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange announced a fresh effort to crack down on public corruption, touting a partnership between multiple state agencies, including a new division of the Attorney General’s office created for the purpose.

A statement released by Strange’s office emphasized the consequences of “[c]rimes involving the breach of trust by public officials and employees.” The statement asserted the importance of combating the misuse of taxpayer money, citing the “scarce resources” available to local government.

The partnership consists of both investigators and prosecutors, and will be headed by Special Prosecutor Matt Hart. Agencies represented include the Ethics Commission, the Criminal Justice Information Center, the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Public Safety.

Hart released a statement as well, noting that “[i]nvestigating and prosecuting violations of the public trust is one of the most challenging missions in law enforcement.” Hart also pledged to maintain “the highest standards of professionalism, accountability, and impartiality” as work begins.

The full report from The Birmingham News can be found here.

The efficacy of this partnership remains to be seen. While it may facilitate the exchange of information between various government and law enforcement agencies, it does not, at first glance, appear to change the means by which investigators collect evidence, or the ways in which prosecutors construct their cases. Neither does it appear to address the sharply political undertones of accusations of public corruption, which can influence significantly the course of an investigation.

If you have questions about how this development may affect you, contact one of our skilled, experienced attorneys for further information.

Attorneys Hal Uhrig and Craig Sonner have announced the cessation of their relationship with George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain who shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Uhrig and Sonner spoke jointly at a press conference, stating that Zimmerman has not communicated with them since last Sunday and that Zimmerman has attempted to contact television host Sean Hannity and special prosecutor Angela Corey. Zimmerman was told by members of Corey’s staff that prosecutors would not speak with him unless his lawyers were present. Corey was assigned to the case in order to determine whether to file criminal charges against Zimmerman; an announcement is expected relatively soon.

The two attorneys maintain their position that Zimmerman is innocent, having acted in self-defense in accordance with Florida’s “stand your ground law,” under which individuals have the right to “meet force with force”—citizens have no duty to retreat, no obligation to avoid conflict. But they said that they could not ethically continue to represent Zimmerman in an official capacity due to his failure to respond to phone calls, emails, and text messages.

The attorneys’ announcement coincides with a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder in which Holder outlines the “thorough and independent review” of Zimmerman’s case.

Observers say the attorneys’ statement was unusual, given that defenders do not normally speak to the media about such matters. Kendall Coffey, a former Miami-based US Attorney, said, “In the court of public opinion, the press conference was not helpful for George Zimmerman.”

The Associated Press report can be found here.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple will face an antitrust lawsuit from the US Department of Justice. The allegations leveled against Apple are tantamount to price fixing; the Justice Department’s suit claims that Apple conspired with five national publishers to restrict competition and artificially inflate the price of e-books. The lawsuit contends that these practices “have caused e-book consumers to pay tens of millions of dollars more for e-books than they otherwise would have paid.”

At issue is an agreement between Apple and major publishing houses in which publishers could set the price of their e-books on Apple’s iBookstore, provided that A) Apple receives a 30% “commission” on each sale and B) the publishers agreed not to sell their content to other distributors for less money. This agreement is known as the agency model.

It proved an attractive option for publishers who had watched as Amazon drove down the price of e-books prior to the 2010 release of the iPad. Amazon had been content to sell the e-books at a loss in order to drive sales of its Kindle and Kindle Fire hardware. Amazon now claims that the alleged price-fixing agreement between Apple and several major publishing houses has unfairly impeded its ability to compete in the e-book market.

Three of the publishers involved in the case—Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, and Hachette Book Group—are expected to reach a settlement with the Justice Department relatively soon.

Attorney General Eric Holder will hold a press conference on Wednesday to discuss “a significant antitrust matter.”

The Wall Street Journal’s report can be found here.

It is perhaps not surprising that, as the e-book market continues to expand and publishers and other distributors look to take advantage of that medium’s unique commercial characteristics, businesses have run afoul of the justice system, which is itself struggling to keep up with the pace of innovation. It also seems as if the Justice Department will look to maintain traditional standards of competitive integrity as giants like Apple and Amazon continue to break new technical and commercial ground.

Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp. will pay a record-setting $42.3 million settlement to the Department of Justice over charges of fraudulent Medicare claims. Instead of admitting patients to other, less expensive hospitals for care, Tenet redirected them to more expensive inpatient rehabilitation hospitals. Tenet’s internal investigators found that many of these patients would not otherwise have been eligible for admission. This meant that Tenet intentionally overbilled Medicare over a two-and-a-half-year period, from May of 2005 to December 2007, a violation of the False Claims Act.

It’s interesting to note that the fraud was exposed from within. After Tenet’s compliance department discovered the fraudulent claims, the company notified the Justice Department of its own volition.

Shares of Tenet Healthcare fell two percent after the settlement was announced.

The full report from Reuters can be found here.

The False Claims Act dates to 1863. Known also as the “Lincoln Law,” the bill originally targeted the 19th-century equivalent of the military-industrial complex: some suppliers of weapons, provisions, and pack animals knowingly sold defective goods to the Union Army, prompting Congressional action. The bill was updated substantially via amendments passed in 1986 and 2009. In addition, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) further strengthened the FCA with respect to payouts associated with Medicare and Medicaid. It seems likely that the government will continue to crack down on cases similar to Tenet’s as lawmakers struggle to rein in the cost of programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Kimberly McLaughlin was convicted of homicide on Friday in the death of her mother, Shirley Robuck, in September of 2009. McLaughlin reportedly stabbed her mother over 200 times, cutting Robuck’s head from her body, and setting both on fire. An arson charge was also filed, but the jury found McLaughlin not guilty.

McLaughlin displayed no emotion as the verdict was read. The jury’s deliberations lasted five hours over a two-day span.

The defense argued that McLaughlin had been mentally ill at the time of the incident, describing her highly abnormal psychological condition as a mitigating factor. McLaughlin was reported to claim that her mother’s head continued to breathe after death.

The prosecution countered that McLaughlin understood the nature of her actions, and cast doubt on the defense’s claims of mental illness by pointing to a history of angry outbursts and cocaine abuse.

A sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled.

The full report from The Huntsville Times can be found here.

It is not clear what kind of sentence was sought by the prosecution, but homicide convictions can mean lengthy prison sentences and, possibly, capital punishment. It is also possible that McLaughlin’s attorneys will pursue the appeals process.

Given the seriousness of a homicide conviction, it’s crucial to hire an attorney who can combine first-rate legal acumen with years of experience in homicide cases. A conviction need not be the last word on a given case, and a top-notch attorney can be of help in navigating the appeals process.

Closing arguments were scheduled for Thursday afternoon in the trial of 51-year-old Kimberly McLaughlin. McLaughlin is accused of murdering her mother, Shirley Robuck, in Robuck’s home on September 13, 2009. Robuck’s body was found burnt and decapitated in her Madison home. Authorities counted over 200 stab wounds.

McLaughlin was taken to Bryce Hospital for evaluation following her arrest. Dr. Mark Schmidt testified that McLaughlin was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the murder, a particularly dangerous form of bipolar disorder associated with psychotic behavior. Dr. Schmidt cited McLaughlin’s belief that Robuck was a witch or demon capable of possessing McLaughlin’s body. When McLaughlin arrived at the hospital, she claimed that Robuck’s head continued to breathe.

Prosecutors challenged the claim that McLaughlin had been mentally ill at the time, citing her history of cocaine abuse and anger management problems.

The full report from The Huntsville Times can be found here.

Statistically, defense strategies based on the defendant’s mental health are not successful; more often than not, juries simply do not buy it. However, the circumstances of McLaughlin’s case appear to be extraordinary, to say the least; while homicide trials can be procedurally complex and emotionally charged, such cases as this one seem to be especially so.

Moreover, no matter how complex a defendant’s case may be, the law accords him or her important rights that must be protected. If you or a loved one are accused of homicide, a skilled, experienced attorney can help you secure your rights.