The Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up Green's appeal, and his conviction is expected to be reinstated. Green was granted house arrest in 2021 after a federal district judge ruled prosecutors withheld evidence in the 1989 shooting death of 21-year-old Charles Flynn.Green's legal victory was short-lived after the U.S.
“Mr. Green and his family were devastated by the news today. Yet, they are a family of remarkable faith, and they are clinging to one remaining hope — that the state of Florida will grant clemency or parole. There is still time for the state to do the right thing,” Keith J. Harrison, an attorney for Green, told the Washington Examiner.
Green's case has been ongoing since his 1990 conviction. He previously faced the death penalty but was resentenced to life in prison in 2009. U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton Jr. ruled in 2018 that prosecutors improperly withheld evidence about police officers suspecting a woman who had dated Flynn in the shooting. But the Florida attorney general's office appealed the ruling, with a panel on the 11th Circuit finding Dalton erred because the issue of withheld evidence was not"exhausted" during appeals in state courts.
On Monday, Green, his family, and attorneys were at a press conference in which he said he wanted to"thank everyone who has supported me," adding,"My faith is in Jesus, and that is a faith that does not disappoint."“It’s a fight for freedom, and the fight isn’t over until freedom is achieved,” Harrison said. “We intend to approach Gov. DeSantis and the parole board. We hope to have a conversation about why Mr. Green deserves to be free. We know Gov.
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court to hear GOP state challenge to pandemic-related Biden student loan debt relief planThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday pertaining to GOP-led states aiming to block President Biden's student debt forgiveness plan. When Biden was a Sen. He made a law that students could NOT write off school debit during bankruptcy. Universities supported this. After that, Universities and college started raising tuition to go to school. If some decides to go to school. They pay the bill, not the public
Source: FoxNews - 🏆 9. / 87 Read more »
Who are the attorneys fighting Biden's costly student loan relief at the Supreme Court?The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Feb. 28 in two cases to decide the fate of President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program. It's a bailout. Call it a bailout. Due diligence on the judges a must. Just Say NO .
Source: dcexaminer - 🏆 6. / 94 Read more »
Supreme Court’s Student-Loan Case Will Test Limits of Presidential PowerArguments begin Tuesday over the Biden administration’s roughly $400 billion plan to forgive federal student debt for tens of millions of borrowers, giving justices an opportunity to set strict limits over the president’s ability to implement policies without explicit authorization from Congress. NO. Next question? absolutely NOT This case has to do with constitutional limits on which branch of the government can initiate spending….. nothing else…..
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Social media needs to be policed — just not by the Supreme CourtSupreme Court Justice Elena Kagan drew laughs last week when she said about herself and her colleagues, “You know, these are not like the nine greatest... 😂 That's what they all say...those who want to be the proxies of the government that are used to spy on citizens and squelch their free speech. It's the same group which used to tell 'keep the internet free!' It wasn't , it isnt, and without regulation, it won't be in the future No government should not control any social media!! Dallas Morning News actively calling for censorship. Worst opinion pieces I’ve ever seen.
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »
How a Supreme Court justice's paragraph put the Voting Rights Act in more dangerJustice Neil Gorsuch tacked on a handful of sentences to a 2021 Supreme Court ruling, planting the seeds of a legal fight that could further weaken Voting Rights Act protections for people of color. Yeah, you people are independent 🤣🙄🤮 What are these protections they are being stripped of? Never specific examples… just vague statements of doom and gloom… which is contrary to recent election turnouts. It seems this argument is detached from reality. And why wouldn't he? What possible consequences does he face? Lifetime appointment, almost 100% guarantee you won't be impeached so why wouldn't they become radicalized?
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »