First Amendment (7)

Bennett v. N.H. Board of Medicine, 05-E-478 (Merrimack, Jun. 30, 2006)

The petitioner, Terry M. Bennett, M.D., originally brought this action challenging the manner in which the New Hampshire Board of Medicine ("Board") had been investigating and adjudicating complaints against him. The petitioner now moves for an injunction barring the Board from taking any further action relative to the complaints against him. The Board objects. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 11, 2006. Considering the parties' arguments and the relevant law, the Court finds and rules as follows.

State v. Zidel, 2006-549 (N.H. S.Ct., Jan. 18, 2008)

DUGGAN, J. The defendant, Marshall Zidel, appeals his conviction on nine counts of possession of child pornography, see RSA 649-A:3 (2007), arguing that the Superior Court (Lewis, J.) erred in denying his motions to dismiss. We reverse.

State v. Daaboul, 07-S-1674 (Hillsborough, South, May. 8, 2008)

LYNN, C.J. The defendant, George Daaboul, is charged with one count of using a computer on-line service to solicit a person he believed to be a child under age 16 to engage in sexual activity, in violation of RSA 649-B:4 (2007). The defendant has filed two motions to dismiss the indictment. The State objects. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are DENIED.

State v. Grant-Chase, 01-S-1141 (Hillsborough, North, Feb. 8, 2002)

The grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant alleging that on or between May 7 and May 17, 2001, she: did purposely commit the crime of criminal solicitation of the crime of criminal solicitation to murder in that, acting with the purpose that another commit the crime of Criminal Solicitation to Murder, Cindy Grant- Chase did solicit and/or request another person to engage in conduct constituting the crime of Solicitation to Murder, in that Cindy Grant-Chase solicited and/or requested Carol Carriola to contact, on behalf of Cindy Grant-Chase, hired killer(s) to arrange for the murder of Cheryl Ciccone by said hired killer(s) in exchange for a fee promised by Cindy Grant-Chase.

Difeo d/b/a/ Dredz International Imports v. Town of Plaistow, 00-E-0218 (Rockingham, Mar. 7, 2002)

Petitioner seeks a declaratory judgment that respondent's zoning ordinance prohibiting body piercing in the Town of Plaistow is unconstitutional, that the Town may regulate but not prohibit body piercing, and that petitioner is authorized to practice body piercing in his Plaistow store. Respondent objects and claims that its zoning ordinance is valid and constitutional, and that petitioner may not practice body piercing in the Town of Plaistow. The court held a trial on the merits on August 2, 2001, which continued on January 17, 2002.

State v. Tulloch, 01-S-199, 200, 711, 712, 02-S-117 (Grafton, Mar. 8, 2002)

WBZ-TV, WBZ-AM Radio, WMUR Channel 9, The Boston Globe, Courtroom Television Network, LLC, and the Massachusetts and New Hampshire Associations of Broadcasters, (hereinafter “the petitioners”), request that the Court enter an order permitting them to videotape, record, and photograph the remaining proceedings in the matter of the State v. Robert Tulloch. Robert Tulloch is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. For the reasons that follow, the petition is DENIED.

State v. Cobb, 95-S-535-F, 96-S-026-F - 96-S-182-F (Strafford, Aug. 15, 2002)

The defendant was convicted on May 6, 1996 of one count of attempted felonious sexual assault, fifty-three counts of exhibiting or displaying child pornography, and 267 counts of possessing child pornography. He now moves for a new trial or, in the alternative, petitions for habeas corpus on the grounds of 1) ineffective assistance of his trial counsel; 2) violation of his First Amendment rights; 3) “failure of the Trial Judge and prosecutor to disclose a close personal and professional relationship;” and 4) prosecutorial misconduct and unfair prejudice which may have affected the jury. The New Hampshire Supreme Court previously upheld the defendant’s convictions. See State v. Cobb, 143 N.H. 638 (1999). As a result, the defendant acknowledges that his petition is a collateral attack on his convictions and concedes that he can only raise the issues in his motion in the context of an attack on the effectiveness of counsel.
Syndicate content