• FAMILY

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Sagi Barzilay v. Tamar Barzilay

Family - Custody of Children - Instant appeal filed for claiming custody alleging wrongful retention by Appellee - Whether this retention in Missouri is qualified to be a "habitual residence" within the meaning of Hague Convention? - International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. § 11601 - Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

Held, in order to determine whether an ICARA petition merits relief "a court must . . . determine when the removal or retention took place, what the habitual residence of the child was immediately prior to the removal, whether the removal or retention violated the petitioner's custody rights under the law of [the] habitual residence, and whether the petitioner was exercising those rights at the time of the removal [or retention]. Once it is determined that a child who was habitually residing in a contracting state was wrongfully removed to or retained in another, the Convention requires that the country in which the child is located 'order the return of the child forthwith' and it is for the District Court to determine whether removal or retention was "wrongful" under the law of the child's "habitual residence". Therefore, in the light of facts of instant case, retention was not wrongful.

• Constitution/ Criminal

Supreme Court of California

People v. Daniel Loreto Noriega

Criminal/ Constitution - Infringement of statutory right- Before trial upon Defendant's objection Trial Court replaced his Counsel - Jury convicted him and he appealed - On Appeal, three Judge Bench held Trial Court's replacement of counsel, not violated defendant's right to counsel under the federal Constitution's Sixth Amendment but was violative under our state Constitution- Replacement, an abuse of Trial Court's discretion - Overruled conviction, on appeal - Whether said replacement amounted to violation? - California Constitution

Held Like the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the California Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel for his or her defense. Article I, section 15 of the state Constitution provides that "[t]he defendant in a criminal cause has the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel for the defendant's defense . . . ." This is a right independent from that guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Therefore, conviction by Trial Court' upheld.