The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have avoided resolving the “state of disarray” among the federal circuit courts on gun rights when they sent a case involving a federal felon in possession statute back to the circuit court for reconsideration.

The high court vacated remanded the appeal on Monday of Andre Dubois, whose conviction for sending firearms overseas came under scrutiny after the Supreme Court handed down a major gun ruling while his appeal was still pending.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against Dubois in March. Dubois had tried to ship firearms wrapped in aluminum foil and hidden inside two deep fryers from an Express Copy Print & Ship store in Georgia to the Commonwealth of Dominica in 2018. After federal officials discovered and seized the shipment, Dubois was charged and convicted under the federal “felon in possession” statute.

While Dubois’s appeal of his conviction was pending, the Supreme Court handed down the landmark gun decision in New York Rifle Assn. v. Bruen, in which the six-member majority ruled that New York’s gun licensing regulations violated the Second Amendment, because they restricted gun rights in a way that was not sufficiently grounded in “historical tradition.”

In response, Dubois raised the argument that his conviction should be vacated because under the new Bruen precedent, the federal statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional.

The Eleventh Circuit disagreed and ruled that the even though Bruen significantly widened gun rights, the felon in possession statute is still constitutional, and Dubois’s conviction still stands. A three-judge panel of the circuit court ruled that Bruen reinforced the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller — which said that full gun rights extend only to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”

Dubois appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the lower courts are in a “state of disarray” over their conflicting interpretations of the felon-in-possession statute post-Bruen. On the practical side, Dubois also argued in his brief that, “Someone who attempted to evade their taxes 20 years ago and has not committed a crime since should retain their Second Amendment rights.” and that likewise, “Someone who committed felony shoplifting at 18 and is now a 40-year old mother who has never been in trouble since should retain their Second Amendment rights.”

The justices sidestepped Dubois’s request, and instead, vacated his conviction and returned the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with instructions to reconsider in light of the Court’s June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour request to halt Friday’s sentencing hearing in the president-elect’s criminal hush-money case out of New York.The 5-4 ruling against the 45th and future-47th president was less than one page.

“The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons,” the order reads. “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

An appeals court in New York has rejected Donald Trump’s latest bid to postpone this Friday’s sentencing hearing in his criminal hush-money case, marking the latest blow in the president-elect’s fight to have the case against him dismissed before he takes office later this month.

“After consideration of the papers submitted and the extensive oral argument, movant’s application for an interim stay is denied,” New York First Department Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer wrote in a brief order following an emergency hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing was held after Trump on Monday asked Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to delay the sentencing hearing while he sought reversal of the judge’s decision not to throw out the case based on landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence granting sitting presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge denies bid by former Duane Morris partner…

Partners

Judge denies bid by former Duane Morris partner to stop his wife’s funeral

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 21, 2024, 10:51 am CST

A Chicago judge on Wednesday denied a former Duane Morris partner’s emergency motion to stop his deceased wife’s parents from holding her funeral, so that he can obtain her remains.

Judge Eve M. Reilly of Cook County, Illinois, denied lawyer Adam P. Beckerink’s request to preserve the remains of his wife, 36-year-old Caitlin Tracey, pending appeal.

Tracey was found dead at the bottom of a stairwell in Beckerink’s South Loop residential building on Oct. 27. Her foot had been severed.

The Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times and Fox 32 Chicago have coverage of Reilly’s Nov. 20 order.

Beckerink was ousted as a partner at Duane Morris after Tracey’s parents sought her remains in court filings alleging that he had physically abused their daughter. A judge in Berrien County, Michigan, granted the parents’ request Nov. 12, saying he had jurisdiction because Tracey was a resident of New Buffalo, Michigan, at the time of her death.

The parents then sought to enforce the judgment in Cook County because the Medical Examiner’s office had the remains.

Two domestic violence charges are pending against Beckerink in Berrien County, Michigan, according to past coverage by the Chicago Tribune. He has not been charged with any crime related to his wife’s death.

The couple had been married six months when Tracey died. A lawyer for Beckerink, Todd Pugh, has previously said Tracey “was the love of Adam’s life.”

In an affidavit supporting a bid for an order of protection that was granted in October 2023, Tracey said Beckerink physically abused her at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, at Beckerink’s South Loop residential building and at her Michigan home.

In one instance, she alleged, Beckerink struck her in the head with a pickle jar and poured vodka on her body, burning her wounds. The protection order was dismissed in November 2023 when Tracey moved to vacate it.

Another lawyer for Beckerink, Telly Stefaneas, told Reilly in a hearing Wednesday that his client planned to appeal the Michigan decision awarding the remains to Tracey’s parents, Andrew and Monica Tracey, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Reilly noted in her order Wednesday that it has been three weeks since Tracey’s death, and the medical examiner’s office has indicated that it could not keep her body beyond 30 days.

“Caitlin is a human being who died under horrible circumstances,” Reilly wrote. “If it is possible for Caitlin’s body to be stored elsewhere for the duration of an appeal, that has not even been filed, no one has informed the court of that fact. Certainly, it does not seem just or equitable to do so.”

A lawyer for Andrew and Monica Tracey, Andrew Cunniff, said in a statement Tracey’s family is grateful for Reilly’s decision.

“We cannot imagine why the defendant would want to keep Caitlin away from her family—even now,” Cunniff said. “No one should have to bury their child, much less fight a legal battle to do it. Thankfully, the right side prevailed, and Caitlin will remain with her family where she belongs.”

A woman in Texas has been sued in civil court by Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott after the famous football star claimed the defendant and her lawyers are attempting to extort him with false accusations that he sexually assaulted her six years ago.

The 14-page complaint, filed in Collin County, Texas, against resident Victoria Baileigh Shores and her attorneys Bethel Zehaie and Yoel Zehaie slams a letter they sent to him in January.

In the letter, which is attached to the civil lawsuit filed Monday, Shores alleged that she and Prescott became acquainted through the social media app Snapchat and that he “invited her to hang out” in February 2017 along with members of his “entourage” and a few other “additional female friends.”

Shores said it was during this encounter that Prescott first got into a black SUV with her and other members of his crew.

Then, her attorneys wrote on Jan. 16:

You directed Ms. Shores to the further back row so you could all head to [redacted]. On the ride to [redacted], you exposed your genitalia. Ms. Shores did not want to engage in sexual intercourse and made sure to verbalize these wishes.

Afterwards, the car came to a stop at your destination. Once this occurred, everyone got out the car except you, and you further signaled to one of your entourage members to leave you and Ms. Shores alone.

It was at this point that Shores alleges Prescott “used physical force and sexually assaulted her … by penetrating her vagina against her consent.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal filed by a group of attorneys who were sanctioned for their work to keep Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election.

In an order list, the nation’s high court denied certiorari to Sidney Powell, as well as fellow lawyers Brandon Johnson, Howard Kleinhendler, Julia Haller, Gregory Rohl, and Scott Hagerstrom.

Each of the so-called “Kraken” attorneys — an umbrella term used by Powell herself which references a phrase from the 1981 Desmond Davis-Ray Harryhausen film “Clash of the Titans” — were sanctioned after filing a lawsuit on behalf of three Republican Party county chairs and three would-be false electors in Michigan.