Inmate sentenced to death will get new trial
CINCINNATI (AP) - A 49-year-old man sentenced to death will get a new trial in the 1997 slaying of a Cincinnati convenience store owner.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a 2018 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that agreed with attorneys for Ahmad Fawzi Issa that statements about his involvement in a murder-for-hire case were hearsay and violated his right to confront witnesses against him. The court threw out his conviction and sentence for allegedly arranging the shooting of Maher Khrais outside his store in 1997.
Hamilton County prosecutor's spokeswoman Julie Wilson said a pretrial hearing in the case is scheduled May 30. Issa has been held in state prison since 1998.
His attorney, Adele Shank of Columbus, called the high court's decision "right and appropriate."
Justices won't take Nazi art dispute case
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is leaving in place a ruling for a California museum in a dispute over ownership of two German Renaissance masterpieces seized by the Nazis in World War II.
The high court on Monday declined to get involved in the case, leaving in place lower court rulings.
A federal appeals court ruled in 2018 for Pasadena's Norton Simon Museum of Art, blocking a lawsuit over ownership of "Adam" and "Eve." The paintings are by Lucas Cranach the Elder.
Marei von Saher sued over the works. They were taken by Nazis in a forced sale from her father-in-law, a Jewish art dealer in the Netherlands. After the war, the Dutch government sold the paintings. The museum acquired them in 1971.
A Dutch court previously ruled against von Saher.
Court sends dispute over Fosamax back to lower court
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Monday that a judge must decide whether a dispute between drugmaker Merck and patients who alleged they were injured by its bone-strengthening drug Fosamax can go forward.
All nine justices agreed that the case should go back to a lower court for further proceedings. The case is at an early stage, and the justices said the question of whether it can move forward should be decided by a judge, not a jury.
Users of Fosamax, which is prescribed to treat osteoporosis in women who have gone through menopause, had sued arguing that Merck had failed to provide adequate warnings of a specific risk of bone fracture on the drug's label. A trial court initially threw out claims against the New Jersey-based company but an appeals court revived them.
The Supreme Court did not answer whether the case should move forward. Instead, it explained that if a judge finds clear evidence Merck told federal regulators about the reasons for a warning and that warning was rejected by regulators, the case should be dismissed. Only three justices - Justice Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh - suggested that was the case.
David Frederick, a lawyer for the patients, said in a statement that the court's ruling "protects access to justice for injured patients." Merck said in its own statement that it was pleased with the decision and "will continue to present evidence that it acted appropriately at all times" in warning about the potential risk of the fractures.
Fosamax was first approved in 1995, but after the drug went on the market, evidence began to emerge that it increases the risk of an unusual type of thigh-bone fracture. In 2008, the FDA said it was concerned about reports of those fractures in Fosamax users and users of similar drugs. In response, Merck proposed changing Fosamax's label.
The FDA agreed Merck should alert users by changing the "adverse reaction" section of Fosamax's label. But the FDA rejected Merck's proposed changes to the label's more serious "warnings" section. At the same time, the FDA began studying the issue, and in 2010 the FDA decided to require Merck to add a warning about the fractures to Fosamax's label.
Hundreds of people ultimately sued Merck, alleging they'd sustained Fosamax-related thigh-bone fractures and arguing that Merck had failed to provide adequate warnings on the drug's label.
The Trump administration had sided with Merck, arguing that the company couldn't have added a warning before 2010 because the FDA determined the available evidence didn't support a change before then.
The case is Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 17-290.
Justices side with Crow tribe member in hunting dispute
By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday sided with a member of the Crow tribe who was fined for hunting elk in Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest, giving him a good chance to get a more than $8,000 fine against him overturned.
The case the justices decided 5-4 is a win for Clayvin Herrera and his tribe, which had argued they had hunting rights in the forest.
Herrera's case began in 2014 when he went hunting with family. The group began on the Crow tribe's reservation in southern Montana but crossed into the neighboring Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming, where they killed several elk.
Soon after, a game warden saw photos Herrera posted on a bragging website for hunters, including one of him crouched in the snow behind an elk he shot and another with its antlers balanced on his shoulders. The game warden ultimately identified the area where the photos were taken in the Bighorn National Forrest, and Herrera was cited for killing an elk there during the winter, when it is prohibited.
But Herrera, backed by the federal government, argued that when his tribe gave up land in present-day Montana and Wyoming under an 1868 treaty, the tribe retained the right to hunt on the land, including land that became Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest.
The state of Wyoming had argued that the Crow tribe's hunting rights ceased to exist after Wyoming became a state in 1890 or after Bighorn National Forest was established in 1897. But the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining his four liberal colleagues - justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - in ruling for Herrera.
The court's four other justices said they would have ruled that a prior case settled that Crow tribe members like Herrera don't have an unrestricted right to hunt and fish in the Bighorn National Forest and are subject to the game laws of Wyoming.
The ruling does not immediately resolve the issue of Herrera's fine. The Supreme Court said in sending the case back to lower courts that the state can argue that it can regulate hunting by Crow tribe members if it is necessary for wildlife conservation.
The state can also try to argue that the tribe's treaty rights didn't extend to the specific area of Bighorn National Forest where he was hunting. But Herrera's lawyers have argued that the location where he was hunting was covered by the treaty and have said data shows that elk are overpopulated in the state.
The state can pursue the case or drop it. In a statement, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon noted that there are outstanding issues in the case which Wyoming courts will resolve. He said his administration will "stand up for a system that preserves the decades of conservation work that has built a strong wildlife population in the Bighorns" and "work to find solutions for all those who hunt."
George Hicks, an attorney for Herrera, said in a statement that his lawyers are gratified by the court's ruling.
The case is Herrera v. Wyoming, 17-532.
--------
Associated Press reporter Mead Gruver contributed to this story from Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Published: Wed, May 22, 2019
