Arizona judge nixes suit that wants Trump backers off ballot

A judge in Phoenix has dismissed lawsuits seeking to disqualify three Republican lawmakers from this year’s ballot because they participated in or helped organize the Jan. 6, 2021, rally in Washington that led to an unprecedented attack on Congress. The decision from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury made public Friday means Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs and state Rep. Mark Finchem remain on the primary ballot barring a reversal by the state Supreme Court. Gosar and Biggs are seeking reelection and Finchem is running for Secretary of State, Arizona’s chief election officer. The lawsuits filed on behalf of a handful of Arizona voters alleged that Gosar, Biggs and Finchem can’t hold office because they participated in an insurrection. They cited a section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution enacted after the Civil War. None of the lawmakers are accused of participating in the actual attack on Congress that was intended to stop certification of President Joe Biden’s win. Coury agreed with the lawmakers’ attorneys who said Congress created no enforcement mechanism for the 14th Amendment, barring a criminal conviction. He noted that Congress proposed such a law in the wake of the attack on Congress but it is not been enacted.

Arizona court won’t halt sex suits naming Boy Scouts, others

Arizona victims of long-ago child sex abuse can proceed with lawsuits against groups like the Boy Scouts of America after the state Supreme Court rejected claims that a state law extending victims’ right to sue was unconstitutional. Arizona is among many states that have reacted to child sex abuse in recent years by allowing victims of even decades-old abuse to sue groups that didn’t protect them from predators. That has led to lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Church, Scouts and others. The high court last week rejected appeals by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and its affiliates in central and southern Arizona of lower court rulings that found a 2019 law extending the statute of limitations was constitutional. The rulings appear to be the first to directly address whether the Arizona law is legal, according to Phoenix attorney Robert Pastor, who represents victims in the two cases the high court considered. Those lawsuits allege that the group that connects youth called “Littles” with adult mentors known as “Bigs” did not properly oversee the Bigs. The cases involved two men who abused boys, one in 1983 and one in the 1970s, court filings show. The men are not defendants.

2nd defendant pleads guilty in 2018 hate crime in Washington

A second defendant has pleaded guilty in federal court to a hate crime and making false statements in connection with a 2018 racially-motivated assault in the Seattle area. U.S. Attorney Nick Brown said Jason DeSimas, 45, of Tacoma, Washington, is one of four men from across the Pacific Northwest being prosecuted for punching and kicking a Black man at a bar in Lynnwood, Washington. U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones scheduled sentencing for July 8. According to the plea agreement, DeSimas was a prospective member of a white supremacist group. DeSimas believed that he and his group could go into bars and initiate fights, so that the rest of the members of the group could join in. On Dec. 8, 2018, the men went to a bar in Lynnwood, Washington and assaulted a Black man who was working as a DJ. The group also assaulted two other men who came to the DJ’s aid. The attackers shouted racial slurs and made Nazi salutes during the assault. DeSimas also admitted making false statements to the FBI during the investigation of the case. Under terms of the plea agreement, both sides will recommend a 37-month prison term. The judge is not bound by the recommendation. Daniel Delbert Dorson, 24, of Corvallis, Oregon, has already pleaded guilty in the case and is scheduled for sentencing Aug. 19. Jason Stanley, 44, of Boise, Idaho, and Randy Smith, 39, of Eugene, Oregon, are also charged in the case and are in custody awaiting trial.

Do You Need a Workers Comp Attorney in Chicago?

You count on your employer to maintain a safe, hazard-free work environment. Industrial employers have an obligation to hire qualified applicants, train their employees properly, and provide the safest possible workspace. However, employers in Chicago often fall short. A work injury can have significant impact on you and your family. If you recently had a workplace injury, it is a good idea to seek legal representation. While studies have found that the vast majority of workers’ compensation claims are legitimate, insurance companies often deny claims that raise red flags. Insurance claims can be very complex and take a long time. You will need an expert team like Krol, Bongiorno & Given to ensure that you get the compensation you need to recover from your injuries and continue working. Workers’ compensation is a complicated area of law. When you get injured at work, you only have a limited amount of time to file a claim for financial compensation. Remember that every second counts after a work injury, and putting off a claim or speaking to a lawyer can prevent you from getting the benefits you deserve. Hiring a work injury lawyer can immediately take the burden of settlement negotiations off your shoulders. At Krol, Bongiorno & Given, we fight for fair and full payment for injured workers in Illinois. As work injury lawyers, it is our goal to explain the process and how we will assist you with your workers’ compensation claim. We are experienced and client-focused trial attorneys. We have handled well over 30,000 claims for injured workers throughout the state of Illinois. If you are injured at work, call (312) 726-5567 for a free consultation or contact us online.

East Greenwich, RI Family Law Office

The Law Office of Erica S. Janton, P.C. offers a wide range of legal services in all areas of family law, encompassing divorce, paternity, adoption, child and/or spousal support, child custody and placement, post judgment modifications, mediation and other related issues. Erica S. Janton has extensive experience in complex high asset and high conflict family law matters and uses her experience within the family court arena to individually tailor strategies with each of her clients and provide realistic solution focused results. Attorney Janton utilizes her educational training as one component of educating her clients about the law and their choices so that each client can assist in the strategic plan of their case. These traits have earned Attorney Janton the reputation among clients, colleagues and judges of being a skilled and reasonable attorney and trusted counselor of her clients’ interests.

New lawsuit challenges end of vaccine mandate exemption

After losing their case in federal court, opponents of Connecticut’s elimination of a long-standing religious exemption from childhood immunization requirements have filed a new challenge in state court seeking to restore the exception. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in Hartford Superior Court by the groups We The Patriots USA and CT Freedom Alliance, as well as three parents of schoolchildren. It names as defendants the state departments of Education and Public Health, local school boards in Bethel, Glastonbury and Stamford, and other state agencies and officials. Among the lawsuit’s arguments is that the ending of the religious exemption for childhood immunization requirements for schools, colleges and day care centers last year violates religious freedom rights provided by the state constitution. The state’s list of required vaccines does not include COVID-19 vaccines. The parents’ religious objections include the use of cell lines from aborted fetuses in the research, development and production of vaccines, the suit says. A federal judge last month dismissed a similar lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, saying the state has an interest in protecting the health of Connecticut’s students. We The Patriots, CT Freedom Alliance and the parents have appealed the ruling to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Court to hear appeal of man convicted in son’s hot-car death

A man whose toddler son died after he left him in a hot car for hours is asking Georgia’s highest court to overturn his convictions for murder and child cruelty. Justin Ross Harris, 41, was convicted in November 2016 on eight counts including malice murder in the death of his 22-month-old son, Cooper. A judge sentenced him to life without parole as well as 32 more years in prison for other crimes. Harris has appealed his convictions for murder and first-degree child cruelty. The Georgia Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for Tuesday. Harris, who moved from Tuscaloosa, Alabama, to the Atlanta area for work in 2012, told police he forgot to drop his son off at day care on the morning of June 18, 2014, driving straight to his job as a web developer for Home Depot without remembering that Cooper was still in his car seat. Cooper died after sitting for about seven hours in the back seat of the vehicle outside his father’s office in suburban Atlanta, where temperatures that day reached at least into the high 80s. Prosecutors argued at trial that Harris was unhappily married and killed his son on purpose to free himself. Defense attorneys described him as a doting father and said the boy’s death was a tragic accident. Police officers who interacted with Harris after his son’s death didn’t think he acted the way a father should under the circumstances, and began investigating all aspects of his life, according to a defense brief filed with the high court. Evidence showed he was a loving and attentive father, even if exchanging sexually explicit messages and graphic photos with women and teenage girls and meeting some of them for sex revealed that Harris was not a great husband, the defense brief says. Investigators “cherry picked the mountain of electronic data to support the conclusion that (Harris) murdered his son, ignoring contrary evidence,” the brief says. Harris’ lawyer, Mitch Durham, argues that the judge shouldn’t have admitted evidence of Harris’ extramarital communications and in-person trysts at trial because his sexual misconduct had nothing to do with the death of his child. Prosecutors argue that plenty of evidence was presented to allow jurors to infer that Harris “acted out of a desire to be free of his wife and son so that he could pursue his self-described sexual addiction.” Durham argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to kill his son and that some of his internet searches, activity and messages were twisted to fit that narrative. He says the evidence of sexual misconduct served only to prejudice the jury against Harris.

Both sides planning for new state-by-state abortion fight

As the Supreme Court court weighs the future of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a resurgent anti-abortion movement is looking to press its advantage in state-by-state battles while abortion-rights supporters prepare to play defense. Both sides seem to be operating on the assumption that a court reshaped by former President Donald Trump will either overturn or seriously weaken Roe. “We have a storm to weather,” said Elizabeth Nash, state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. “We have to weather the storm so that in the future — five, 10, 15 years from now — we’re talking about how we managed to repeal all these abortion bans.” The institute estimates that as many as 26 states would institute some sort of abortion-access restrictions within a year, if permitted by the court. At least 12 states have “trigger bans” on the books, with restrictions that would kick in automatically if the justices overturn or weaken federal protections on abortion access. The current case before the court, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerns a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Roe v. Wade, which was reaffirmed in a subsequent 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, allows states to regulate but not ban abortion up until the point of fetal viability, at roughly 24 weeks.

Federal judge in Mississippi to take Senior Status

A federal judge in Mississippi has decided to take senior status beginning Monday. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills told the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal that he’s making the move after serving two decades on the federal bench. Senior status opens a vacancy on the court for the Northern District of Mississippi and will allow Mills to handle a reduced caseload on the federal court. In his Oct. 13 letter to President Joe Biden, he stated he had attained the age and met the service requirements for that status. Still, he said, he intends to continue to carry a full case load until his replacement is sworn in. “It’s been great,” Mills said.. “I have thoroughly enjoyed working with the other judges, lawyers, and staff and hope to continue to do so.” Mills was nominated by former President George W. Bush to the seat after U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers decided to take senior status. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2001. Prior to his service on the federal level, Mills served on the Mississippi Supreme Court, in the state House representing Itawamba and Monroe counties. Longtime friend and attorney Steve Farese told the newspaper that Mills is well versed in the law and applies that knowledge in his decision-making process. “The Northern District of Mississippi has been blessed before and throughout my 44-year career with excellent Article 3 judges,” said Farese. “Judge Mills is certainly of that ilk. A true Renaissance Man, Judge Mills loves literature and the outdoors.” Farese said Mills is empathetic when it’s called for and balances justice with mercy. “His personality and demeanor give all participants a sense of understanding of his procedures,” he said. “I look forward to continuing practicing before him as he takes senior status.” Attorney Rachel Pierce Waide said Mill’s presence in her life as well as on the bench has been a gift. “I’m sad to hear this news. I have known Judge Mills my entire life and his presence both personally and professionally has truly been a gift,” Waide said. “His chief goal in life and on the bench is to be fair and he practices that routinely.”

Judge to review Arizona audit records for possible release

An Arizona judge on Tuesday ordered the state Senate to immediately provide text messages and emails related to the Senate Republicans’ partisan review of the 2020 vote count. Maricopa County Superior Court judge John Hannah said he will review the records and decide whether they must be given to The Arizona Republic, which has requested them under the state’s public records law. The Senate’s GOP leaders say the records don’t have to be publicly disclosed because of legislative privilege, which is meant to promote frank and honest debate among lawmakers. The Republic has good reason to believe that legislative privilege does not apply to at least some of the records, Hannah wrote in a 13-page ruling. Kory Langhofer, a lawyer representing the Senate, said the records were given to the court. The judge’s ruling did not say how long he would take to review them and decide whether they should be given to the newspaper.

Ex-cop’s murder verdict reversed in Australian woman’s death

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed the third-degree murder conviction of a former Minneapolis police officer who fatally shot an Australian woman in 2017, saying the charge doesn’t fit the circumstances in the case. Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, a dual U.S.-Australian citizen who called 911 to report a possible sexual assault behind her home. He was sentenced to 12 1/2 years on the murder count but was not sentenced for manslaughter. The ruling means his murder conviction is overturned and the case will now go back to the district court, where he will be sentenced on the manslaughter count. He has already served more than 28 months of his murder sentence. If sentenced to the presumptive four years for manslaughter, he could be eligible for supervised release around the end of this year. Caitlinrose Fisher, one of the attorneys who worked on Noor’s appeal, said she’s grateful that the Minnesota Supreme Court clarified what constitutes third-degree murder, and she hopes that will lead to greater equity and consistency in charging decisions. “We’ve said from the beginning that this was a tragedy but it wasn’t a murder, and now the Supreme Court agrees and recognizes that,” she said. Messages left Wednesday with the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, were not immediately returned. The ruling could give former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin grounds to contest his own third-degree murder conviction in George Floyd’s death in May 2020. But that wouldn’t have much impact on Chauvin since he was also convicted of the more serious count of second-degree murder and is serving 22 1/2 years. Experts say it’s unlikely Chauvin would be successful in appealing his second-degree murder conviction.

SC high court rejects capital city’s school mask mandate

South Carolina’s highest court on Thursday tossed out a school mask mandate in the state’s capital city, saying it contradicts a state budget measure aimed at preventing face covering requirements. State Attorney General Alan Wilson had sued the city of Columbia after its City Council passed the ordinance requiring masks at elementary and middle schools. City leaders said the mask requirement, which carries a $100 violation fine, was meant to protect children too young to be approved for the coronavirus vaccine. But Wilson argued the city’s mask rule conflicts with the budget requirement that went into effect July 1 and bans school districts from using appropriated funds to require face coverings. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court sided unanimously with the attorney general. The Columbia ordinance is written so that the burden of enforcing the mask rule falls on school employees, “all of whom have an obvious connection to state-appropriated funds,” wrote Justice John Kittredge. That means school employees have to choose between violating state or city laws, the opinion reads. “The City has made clear that every school employee is in the crosshairs,” Kittredge wrote. “Simply put, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the City threatens all school personnel with far-reaching and unknown legal liability unless all school personnel ensure obedience to the ordinances.” Attorneys for Columbia had argued days prior that city and school authorities could draw from separate pots of money, such as local funds, to enforce mask-wearing. They also claimed the legislature overstepped constitutional boundaries by putting the mask rule — a policy unrelated to state finances — in the budget, which aims to raise and spend money.

West African court to rule on Venezuelan’s extradition to US

A protracted legal battle over the extradition from Cape Verde to the United States of a businessman close to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro comes to a head next week when the West African country’s Constitutional Court is due to rule on the case. Alex Saab was arrested when his jet made a refueling stop on the small island chain, formerly a Portuguese colony, on a June 2020 flight to Iran. U.S. officials believe Saab holds numerous secrets about how Maduro, the president’s family and his top aides allegedly siphoned off millions of dollars in government contracts amid widespread hunger in oil-rich Venezuela. Saab is fighting extradition. His lawyers argue that he has diplomatic immunity because he was acting as a special envoy for Venezuela when he was detained in Cape Verde. Jose Pinto Monteiro, Saab’s lead counsel in Cape Verde, said Friday there are two possible outcomes when the Constitutional Court sits on Aug. 13. Either the judges throw out Saab’s appeal and the extradition goes ahead, or they accept that there are unconstitutional elements in the case and send it back to a lower court to correct them, Pinto Monteiro told a press conference via video link. Cape Verde’s Supreme Court ruled last March that the extradition could proceed, and the Constitutional Court appeal is Saab’s last hope. Saab’s international legal team argues that the extradition has a political motive. Federal prosecutors in Miami indicted Saab in 2019 on money-laundering charges connected to an alleged bribery scheme that pocketed more than $350 million from a low-income housing project for the Venezuelan government that was never built.

#1 Law Firm Web Design Company in Los Angeles

At Law Promo, our design team has extensive experience working with a large number of law firms in Los Angeles areas, making it easy for you to establish a successful web presence. With extensive experience working solely with the legal community, we’ve been providing first-rate website service to more than 3,000 attorneys since 2004. Your website is your firm’s greatest asset for marketing and generating leads. How many opportunities have you missed with an outdated site? Poor webs design is often the primary reason for a website’s demise because it fails to engage the user. Also outdated designs or poorly constructed websites can actually hurt your legal business and your firm’s reputation. https://www.lawpromo.com/news/law-firm-web-design-company-in-los-angeles/

West African court to rule on Venezuelan’s extradition to US

A protracted legal battle over the extradition from Cape Verde to the United States of a businessman close to Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro comes to a head next week when the West African country’s Constitutional Court is due to rule on the case. Alex Saab was arrested when his jet made a refueling stop on the small island chain, formerly a Portuguese colony, on a June 2020 flight to Iran. U.S. officials believe Saab holds numerous secrets about how Maduro, the president’s family and his top aides allegedly siphoned off millions of dollars in government contracts amid widespread hunger in oil-rich Venezuela. Saab is fighting extradition. His lawyers argue that he has diplomatic immunity because he was acting as a special envoy for Venezuela when he was detained in Cape Verde. Jose Pinto Monteiro, Saab’s lead counsel in Cape Verde, said Friday there are two possible outcomes when the Constitutional Court sits on Aug. 13. Either the judges throw out Saab’s appeal and the extradition goes ahead, or they accept that there are unconstitutional elements in the case and send it back to a lower court to correct them, Pinto Monteiro told a press conference via video link. Cape Verde’s Supreme Court ruled last March that the extradition could proceed, and the Constitutional Court appeal is Saab’s last hope. Saab’s international legal team argues that the extradition has a political motive. Federal prosecutors in Miami indicted Saab in 2019 on money-laundering charges connected to an alleged bribery scheme that pocketed more than $350 million from a low-income housing project for the Venezuelan government that was never built.

Parking tickets hit the docket of federal appeals court

A federal appeals court has heard arguments in a challenge to a Michigan city’s practice of marking tires to catch people who ignore time limits on parking. Alison Taylor is appealing a decision that went in favor of Saginaw. Her attorney argues that chalking tires violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case made headlines in 2019 when the same appeals court said marking tires could be illegal without a warrant in some circumstances. The court sent the lawsuit back to a federal judge in Bay City for more work, but he eventually ruled against Taylor again. A different three-judge panel at the appeals court heard arguments Thursday. In court papers, Saginaw said it’s a “novel issue” but not a violation of the constitution. “The city used the chalk to inform vehicle owners that that their vehicle is subject to the time limitations as set forth by the local ordinances,” attorneys for Saginaw said. The city said Taylor had 14 parking tickets, some issued after a tire was marked. Taylor’s attorney, Philip Ellison, said a chalk line on a tire might be “low tech” but it’s still an illegal trespass against her car. He wants to make the case a class-action.

Bankruptcy proceedings can have long-term benefits

What Is Bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is a Federal system of laws, rules, and procedures designed to help legal residents of the U.S. deal with their debts, which, for whatever reason, individuals or businesses cannot pay as they are due. The most common types of Bankruptcy are for people (called Consumer Bankruptcies). Two major types of Consumer Bankruptcy are: Chapter 7 (liquidation or debt-elimination), Chapter 13 (wage-earner reorganization for individuals or people running unincorporated businesses). Chapter 11 is a type of Corporate Bankruptcy (reorganization for businesses and certain individuals with extremely large amounts of debt). The Chapter number refers to the section of the Bankruptcy law, called the Bankruptcy Code (which is in Title 11 of the U.S. Code). Bankruptcy cases almost exclusively fall under federal law, though states may pass laws governing issues that federal law doesn’t address. Special bankruptcy courts nationwide handle only debtor-creditor cases. Generally, any bankruptcy-related claim must be filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Chicago Bankruptcy Law Firm Covers Bankruptcy in the Wake of COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has damaged the economy, leaving many families and business owners worried about how they will pay for even the most basic expenses. In the midst of this crisis, you might be considering filing for bankruptcy or wondering how COVID-19 will affect an existing bankruptcy filing. No matter your situation, Chicago Bankruptcy Law Firm of Daniel J. Winter is here to help give you the answers and assistance that you need. We are more than happy to explain to anyone in financial distress exactly what their options are.

Tests: Broken pipe didn’t pollute Georgia government center

Two courtrooms in Columbus’ main government building are reopening after tests found a ruptured pipe did not introduce mold or harmful fungi into the air. A ruptured drainpipe from the roof had dumped leaves, bird feces and other debris into the 11th-floor office of Muscogee County Superior Court Judge Gil McBride in June. Documents obtained by the Ledger-Enquirer show tests of pipe debris showed no fungi associated with bird and bat droppings that can cause infections in people with weakened immune systems. Samples also showed no significant amounts of mold. Mold levels in the outside air were higher, suggesting the building’s air filtration system is working. “The courts have been assured by the city that the courtrooms are safe for public use,” McBride wrote in a text message. “This is good news, especially for judges who were without courtrooms for next week.” The 51-year-old building flooded because of water leaks twice in 2018. Columbus leaders say they plan to ask voters to approve a special sales tax in November to repair or replace the building. A nearly 80-pound panel fell in a seventh-floor courtroom and hit a court official a few weeks ago, prompting safety inspections of all courtrooms. Columbus Mayor Skip Henderson could not be reached Friday for an update on inspections. McBride said Muscogee County jurors will continue to be selected at the municipal ice rink for now. Once jurors are selected, trials will take place in the regular courtrooms.

Prosecutors seek 35-year sentence for gang member in killing

Federal prosecutors in Maryland are seeking a 35-year prison sentence for a gang member who pleaded guilty to participating in the killing of a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed and cut more than 100 times before his body was set on fire. A judge is scheduled to sentence Kevin Alexis Rodriguez-Flores on July 19. He pleaded guilty in April to conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise and conspiracy to destroy and conceal evidence. Rodriguez admitted that he was a member of Mara Salvatrucha street gang, or MS-13 for short, and took part in the March 2019 killing over the mistaken belief that the boy, a fellow member, was working with police, prosecutors said in a court filing on Friday. The boy was beaten and stabbed or cut roughly 144 times by Rodriguez and others whom he believed to be his friends, they wrote. The killing took place during an MS-13 clique meeting in the Hyattsville, Maryland, home of the clique’s leader. After the boy’s killing, clique members took his body to a secluded location in Stafford County, Virginia, and set it on fire, according to prosecutors. Rodriguez was 20 when a grand jury indicted him and three other men in July 2020 on charges stemming from the boy’s killing. He was the first and only defendant to plead guilty as of Monday. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has set a Sept. 17 deadline for the U.S. Justice Department to notify the court whether it intends to seek the death penalty against co-defendant Jose Domingo Ordonez-Zometa. The indictment describes Ordonez as the MS-13 clique leader and claims he ordered the boy’s killing after questioning him about a recent encounter with police. Rodriguez came to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2016, living with his mother in New Jersey before he moved to Virginia approximately a month before the killing. The plea agreement between prosecutors and Rodriguez calls for a sentence ranging from 30 years to life imprisonment, but Xinis isn’t bound by that recommendation.

Court hears bail arguments for driver in crash that killed 7

A truck driver charged with causing the deaths of seven motorcyclists in 2019 deserves a bail hearing despite a judge’s ruling that he should remain jailed, a defense attorney argued before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Tuesday. Volodymyr Zhukovskyy, 25, of West Springfield, Massachusetts, has been in jail since the crash happened in Randolph on June 21, 2019. He pleaded not guilty to multiple counts of negligent homicide, manslaughter, driving under the influence and reckless conduct. His trial is scheduled to start on Nov. 29. His lawyers asked a judge for a bail hearing twice in 2020 and again in April. The judge denied the requests, agreeing with the state that Zhukovskyy is a danger to himself and others. Christopher Johnson, appellate defender, said among the issues in dispute are statements Zhukovskyy made to police after the collision; the degree and extent of Zhukovskyy’s impairment that day; the amount of reaction time available when the motorcyclists and Zhukovskyy came into each other’s field of vision; whether Zhukovskyy did react by braking; and his lane location. Johnson added that Zhukovskky has maintained his sobriety while he has been jailed for the last two years. Johnson also said the state, in its written arguments supporting the judge’s decision, relied on part of a statute that says people on probation have a right to a bail hearing. He said he didn’t think the Legislature would need to make that right explicit in the law for people who are not on probation. “It would be an absurd result, I think, to say that probationers are the class of people more entitled to an evidentiary hearing than non-probationers,” he said, adding, “You give it to them, but not everybody else?” Assistant Attorney General Scott Chase said the judge was not required to hold a bail hearing or use any specific method to assess Zhukovskyy’s dangerousness. He said evidence on that point was “glaring.” For example, there is no dispute that Zhukovskyy said he mixed heroin and cocaine before getting behind the wheel that day, Chase said.