ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Supreme Court denies Conrad Black bail request

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Thursday denied bail to Canadian-born media mogul Conrad Black, leaving him the option of filing a request in district court. The one-page denial was issued by Justice John Paul Stevens in response to Black's recent request for bail pending appeal. In their request, Black's lawyers argued that Black poses no danger to the community, is unlikely to flee and has a legitimate appeal not brought for the purposes of delay. Additionally, the request points out that co-petitioner John Boultebee was granted bail based on the same "substantial question of law or fact." The US government opposed the request on the grounds that a ruling in Black's favor on the question presented is "not likely to result in reversal of all his convictions or a prison sentence shorter than the time it will take the court to issue its decision." Federal law stipulates that a defendant is entitled to bail if the "substantial question of law or fact" is likely to result in reversal, a new trial, a sentence without imprisonment or a reduced jail sentence. In a strongly worded response to the government's reply, Black's lawyers emphasized that the only difference between their case and Boultebee's is the additional obstruction of justice charge, arguing that the government cannot carry the burden of proving that the "error in the fraud counts was harmless as to the obstruction conviction." Black is currently awaiting his appeal to be heard following the Court's recent grant of certiorari to determine if the "honest services" clause of 18 USC § 1346 applies in mail and wire fraud cases where there is no finding that the defendant "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," calling into question the jury question from the lower court. Black, former chairman of Hollinger International, originally faced 17 counts of fraud, obstruction of justice, racketeering and tax evasion. He was accused by the US government of diverting more than $80 million from the company and its shareholders during Hollinger's $2.1 billion sale of several hundred Canadian newspapers. In 2007, Black was convicted of mail fraud and obstruction of justice and sentenced to 78 months in prison. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit initially rejected Black's appeal, holding that § 1346 may be applied in a private setting regardless of whether the defendant's conduct risked any foreseeable economic harm to the victim.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on June 12, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0138 secs (new cache)