Black Immigrant Daily News

Readers are asked to note that Op-eds do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of Loop Cayman.

by ‘Concerned Citizen’

Just like me, you may have found yourself in a predicament but didn’t have the money to hire a lawyer to represent you in court. In my circumstances, I gave up because I didn’t have sufficient finances and wasn’t aware of alternative resources. Subsequently, I learned about the option to apply to the government for legal aid, which I think is an incredible source of funding that can improve your chances to obtain representation in court.

Qualifying for legal aid

First, you can find guidance on the application process on the court’s website (https://www.judicial.ky/guidance-information).

To understand this guidance in more depth, you may need to review the Legal Aid Act and the Legal Aid Regulations.

But, since laws and regulations can be complicated at times, I think it is better to illustrate the process through a description of a real court case where legal ais funding was utilized.

For this, let’s refer to the recent challenge by Kattina Anglin against the Director of Legal Aid (the “Director”).

Anglin, like any other legal aid applicant, went through the standard process: completing forms, providing documentation and then waiting for an answer from the Director.

Before furnishing a response, here are some of the things that the Director may explore:

Strength of your argument and the likelihood that it will be successful in court (in lawyer terms, having a reasonable prospect of success based on the merits of the case)Seeing if the issues you raise are of general public importance, which are in the public interest to resolveExamining whether the matter involves a substantial question of law Analyzing your financial position (generally speaking, the yearly total income of your household must be a low number, as explained on page 22 of the Legal Aid Regulations, if you can obtain a copy)

Grant of legal aid

If the Director of Legal Aid (the “Director”) is satisfied that you have met the above terms and you have a reasonable prospect of success in court, the Director may issue a legal aid certificate to you. The amount of legal aid funding you will receive (to pay for court proceedings) will be specified in this certificate.

In the event that you require more funding for subsequent stages of your case (for example, you may lose at the first stage of your case, but you may wish to go to the second stage and appeal), you can apply to the Director for more funding. This was actually the case for Anglin, who was unsuccessful at the first stage and applied for more money to fund subsequent stages.

Alternatively, the Director may refuse to issue you a legal aid certificate. This may be the case if the Director believes that you do not have a reasonable prospect of success in your case.

However, as noted in the Anglin case, the Director must provide reasons for any refusal. If no reasons are presented by the Director, the court may, as in the Anglin case, reverse the legal aid refusal and make funding available to you.

Knowledge is power

In my opinion, knowledge of these legal aid rules and successfully qualifying for legal aid funding can change your outlook. You may go from feeling down-and-out, crushed and downtrodden to positive, hopeful and motivated, now that funds are available to help with your representation.

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

La carretera PR-10 entre Arecibo a Utuado fue cerrada debido a un accidente de carácter fatal ocurrido a eso de las 7:10 de la mañana hoy. El accidente, entre un Kia Rio rojo y un Hyundai Elantra color gris, ocurrió cerca de la estación de gasolina que se ubica en el kilómetro 58.7 de Arecibo a Utuado. 

Según la información preliminar, una mujer perdió la vida, dos hombres resultaron con heridas de gravedad y otros tres con heridas leves.  

Al momento, se desconoce la identidad de las víctimas.

El agente Reyes, de la división de Patrullas de Carreteras de Utuado, se hizo cargo de la investigación.

La carretera 10 permanecerá cerrada hasta que culmine la investigación. Se utilizará como vía alterna la carretera 123.

NewsAmericasNow.com

Black Immigrant Daily News

Maryland’s highest court has ruled that Washington, DC-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo must be resentenced, because of US Supreme Court decisions relating to constitutional protections for juveniles made after Malvo was sentenced to six life sentences without the possibility of parole.

In its 4-3 ruling, however, the Maryland Court of Appeals said it’s very unlikely Malvo would ever be released from custody, because he is also serving separate life sentences for murders in Virginia.

“As a practical matter, this may be an academic question in Mr Malvo’s case, as he would first have to be granted parole in Virginia before his consecutive life sentences in Maryland even begin,” Judge Robert McDonald wrote in the majority opinion released Friday.

McDonald wrote that it’s ultimately not up to the Court of Appeals to decide the appropriate sentence for Malvo, or whether he should ever be released from his Maryland sentences.

“We hold only that the Eighth Amendment requires that he receive a new sentencing hearing at which the sentencing court, now cognizant of the principles elucidated by the Supreme Court, is able to consider whether or not he is constitutionally eligible for life without parole under those decisions,” McDonald wrote.

Malvo, 37, is now confined at the Red Onion State Prison in Virginia.

Malvo and his mentor, John Allen Muhammad, shot people in Virginia, Maryland and Washington as they pumped gas, loaded packages into their cars and went about their everyday business during a three-week period in 2002. Malvo was 17 at the time; Muhammad was 41.

Muhammad was sentenced to death and was executed in Virginia in 2009.

In Maryland, Malvo voluntarily testified against Muhammad. In 2006, Malvo pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree murder in Montgomery County in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

At his sentencing that year, the prosecutor stated that Malvo, once under the sway of an “evil man”, had changed and “grown tremendously” since his participation in the crimes, according to the Court of Appeals ruling.

The ruling said Malvo’s sentence was “consistent with the pertinent State statute and with the advisory State sentencing guidelines at that time.”

“Since then, however, the Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment does not permit a sentence of life without parole for a juvenile homicide offender if a sentencing court determines that the offender’s crime was the result of transient immaturity, as opposed to permanent incorrigibility,” the ruling said.

The ruling also noted that the Supreme Court has held that the legal constraint applies retroactively and applies to Malvo’s case.

Judges Jonathan Biran, Brynja Booth and Joseph Getty joined McDonald in the majority. Judges Shirley Watts, Michele Hotten and Steven Gould dissented.

Watts wrote that the sentencing court took Malvo’s status as a juvenile into account.

“The record demonstrates that Mr Malvo received a personalised sentencing procedure at which his youth and its attendant characteristics were considered, and the circuit court was aware that it had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence,” Watts wrote.

Hotten wrote that any alleged finding of corrigibility “did not render petitioner’s sentences unconstitutional disproportionate as applied”.

“Rather the proportionality of Petitioner’s sentences must be weighed against the severity of his crimes,” Hotten wrote. “Petitioner committed some of the worst crimes in the history of the State. It was not grossly disproportionate that a heavy penalty was imposed.”

By BRIAN WITTE

Associated Press

NewsAmericasNow.com