Napoleon Beazley was convicted by the State of Texas for the murder of John Luttig in 1994.  Beazley was 17 years old at the time of the crime, and his death by legal injection on May 28, 2002 sparked public outrage from a split community.  The two other defendants, Cedric Coleman and Donald Coleman, were 19 and 18 at the time of the crime and received life in prison instead of death by lethal injection. 

The details of the murder are provided below:

Napoleon Beazley took his mother’s car on the night of April 19, 1994 and picked up Cedric and Donald Coleman.  Beazley was carrying a .45-caliber pistol and a sawed-off shotgun and soon followed John and Bobbie Luttig home. 

Beazley took his .45-caliber pistol, ran toward the garage, and shot John Luttig in the side of the side.  John remained alive but stunned, and Beazley quickly ran around to the other side of the car to Mrs. Luttig.  He fired a shot at close range and missed, but Mrs. Luttig still fell to the ground.  Then, Beazley returned to where Mr. Luttig was sitting and shot him point blank in the head. 

Beazley proceeded to search Mr. Luttig’s pockets and found his Mercedes keys.  He escaped with the Mercedes but lost control and crashed the car into a retaining wall.  He soon regrouped with Cedric and Donald Coleman and abandoned the Mercedes. 

Napoleon Beazley and the two other defendants were eventually arrested.  Beazley was sentenced to death by lethal injection on March 17, 1995 and soon begun the appeal process.  Cedric and Donald Coleman received life in prison. 

On June 3, 1997, Beazley filed for state writ of habeas corpus, and the evidentiary hearing began on September 5, 1997.  He was eventually denied relief on January 21, 1998, and the process of denied relief and permission to appeal began.  Napoleon Beazley was eventually scheduled for execution, but he was granted a stay of execution on August 15, 2001.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals eventually threw out the stay of execution and Beazley was scheduled for execution on May 22, 2002. 

In a last effort to avoid execution, Beazley petitioned for certiorari review from the Supreme Court on May 22.  The petition was denied, and Beazley was executed on May 28, 2012.  He was the 19^th murderer under the age of 18 executed by the United States since 1976.  He was the 11^th in Texas alone. 

The media covered Napoleon Beazley’s case intensely—as is the case in any execution of a person who committed the crime when they were a juvenile.  The case also received a massive amount of media attention and reaction from the general public because of execution laws and statistics in the state of Texas compared to other states. 

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Texas allowed a total of 487 executions since 1976—more than four times the amount of death penalties granted by Virginia, the closest state with 109 total. 

Khobar Towers bombing

In 1996, a Saudi Arabia building complex housing American soldiers was the subject of a terrorist attack. This incident, known as the "Khobar Towers bombing," was the subject of considerable controversy as to who was responsible.

The Khobar Towers bombing of June 25, 1996 followed a similar 1995 car bombing in the city of Khobar. American forces in Saudi Arabia were already on heightened alert. Despite warnings from various Saudi citizens of plans being made for the Khobar Towers bombing, the American government and military failed to take steps to prepare and protect the facility. However, a soldier on sentry duty noticed the arrival of three vehicles and helped evacuate much of the building prior to the detonation of a truck bomb. 19 Americans were killed in the attack, as well as one Saudi citizen.

Following the Khobar Towers bombing, the American government conducted multiple reviews to determine what kind of new safety standards should be implemented. The FBI initiated an investigation concerning the Khobar Towers bombing. During their investigation, the CIA had already issued warnings that Iran's law enforcement was to be considered a hostile threat. In 1997, the "Washington Post" published a story about Hani al-Sayegh, who Saudi intelligence said drove the get-away vehicle following the Khobar Towers bombing. In 2009, later reports suggested that this story was false and that Hani al-Sayegh disclaimed any involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing.

In 2001, an indictment was issued as the result of the FBI investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing. This indictment named 14 men as participants in the conspiracy to organize the Khobar Towers bombing and stated that all were members of Hezbollah, a militant organization which the government claimed had been obtaining funding from the Iranian government. However, the indictment did not name any members of the Iranian government as being directly involved in the Khobar Towers bombing.

This indictment was issued just within the five year statute of limitations during which this could be returned. At the time of this indictment, a press conference was held in which the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, and the FBI's director, Louis Freeh, stated that the choice not to name any Iranian government members was not motivated by considerations about maintaining diplomatic relations. The government also claimed that some of those in the indictment were already in the custody of the American judicial system.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the committee investigating those attacks discovered evidence suggesting that the terrorist organization al Qaeda might have been behind the Khobar Towers bombing. Various government officials have since expressed the opinion that Iran was not responsible for instigating or financing the Khobar Towers bombing. None of the people named in the indictment concerning the Khobar Towers bombing received trials for their role in the attack. No official government position concerning who was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing has been arrived at.

Scott Feil

Scott Feil is a California businessman and former medical marijuana dispensary owner. The medical marijuana dispensary in question, United Medical Caregivers Clinic, was operating in 2005 when it became the target of local and federal legal action.

Scott Feil became interested in medical marijuana following the death of his father in 1998. His first dispensary was opened in the city of Ukiah. After a few years of successful operation, he decided to open another dispensary in Los Angeles. In both cases, operation of the dispensaries was approved by the state. The dispensaries were two of 74 licensed at that time to operate in the state.

In March 2005, a Los Angeles Police Department officer examined the paperwork of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic. The clinic was opened 2003 after Scott Feil obtained paperwork approving his operation from the state of California. Many medical marijuana dispensaries operate in the state, though their status under federal law is unclear. After visiting the clinic, the police obtained a search warrant from a judge. However, during their application they did not document the previous visit or note that they were aware that the clinic was operating legally under state law.

The United Medical Caregivers Clinic was subsequently raided by the LAPD, which confiscated $186,416 it claimed were obtained as part of illegal transactions. Scott Feil subsequently filed an appeal seeking a return of these assets, arguing that they were legally obtained under California law. A federal court found that the warrant used in the raid had been obtained in a misleading way, but still ruled that Scott Feil had forfeited his funds.

Scott Feil appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2009, the court ruled in favor of Scott Feil, ordering the LAPD to return the confiscated funds. In its decision, the court noted its concern that the LAPD could conduct similar illegal searches for its own enrichment. However, prior to the return of this verdict Scott Feil was became the defendant in federal criminal charges related to his previous ownership of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic, which was sold after 2005 and ceased operation in 2007. Scott Feil was charged with tax evasion and other legal infractions related to operation of the clinic.

The resulting case, known as USA v. Feil, was initially resolved when Scott Feil agreed to plead guilty and accept a plea bargain that would result in a large financial penalty. However, after this agreement was reached, the terms of the plea bargain were changed. The government said it wanted Scott Feil to serve five years in federal prison. Charges were also filed against his wife, his father in law, and three other former participants in the operation of the United Medical Caregivers Clinic. In preparing his defense, Scott Feil's lawyers planned to once again focus on the issue of misconduct by the prosecuting authorities. 

Warren Jeffs

Warren Jeffs is the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), an offshoot of the Mormon church.  He inherited this position from his father upon the latter's death and was known as a practitioner of polygamous marriage. He also arranged marriages for the members of his church, including marriages between underage girls and older men. Prior to his arrests in multiple states, he had attracted legal attention for these activities.

Due to increasing legal attention, Warren Jeffs became a fugitive after last being seen on his Texas ranch at the beginning of 2005. He was apprehended by Nevada authorities in August of 2006 and agreed to voluntarily return to Utah to stand trial on charges of rape. The charges related to a marriage which Warren Jeffs arranged in 2001 between then-14-year-old Elissa Wall and her 19-year-old first cousin Allen Steed. Wall's attorneys charged that Warren Jeffs had arranged the marriage with the knowledge that it would result in non-consensual sex, making him an accessory to the repeated rape of the underage girl.

Warren Jeffs' defense attorney argued that while his client had arranged the marriage, he had never intended for it to result in rape. His client was found guilty and an appeal was filed, which ultimately resulted in a new order being ordered by the Utah Supreme Court in 2010. In their decision, the court agreed with the argument presented by Warren Jeffs' attorney that the presiding judge in the trial had committed a legal error in directing the jury to focus on Warren Jeffs' intent rather than his role in enabling the rapes.

In 2011, Warren Jeffs was tried in San Antonio, Texas. The charges filed against him concerned sexual assault committed on two of his wives, who were aged 12 and 15 at the time. To prove the former charge, the prosecution played an audio recording of Warren Jeffs having intercourse with the woman. To prove the latter charge, the prosecution presented DNA evidence that Warrens Jeffs was the father of the 15-year-old girl's child. During the course of the trial, prosecutors presented a great deal of evidence, largely acquired during a raid on the Texas ranch of Warren Jeffs. This included information about the role of Warren Jeffs in consistently arranging underage marriages. Prosecutors revealed that Warren Jeffs had 78 wives, 12 of whom he had married when they were 16, and another 12 who had been married at age 15 or younger.

Warren Jeffs chose to conduct his own defense. During the course of the trial, he only called one witness to the stand, an adherent of his church who read passages from Mormon scripture while in the witness stand. The jury hearing the case found him guilty. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury took 30 minutes to decide to sentence Warren Jeffs to life in prison plus 20 years.

Daniel Maldonado

Daniel Maldonado is an American citizen who was arrested for his role in fighting alongside Muslim terrorists in Somalia. He was the first American to be prosecuted for such actions.

Daniel Maldonado was a resident of Houston, Texas when he went to to Africa, arriving in Somalia in December 2006 after spending more than a year traveling across the continent. According to charges filed against Daniel Maldonado, he joined a group called the Islamic Groups Union, which had been classified as a terrorist organization. Under their auspices, Daniel Maldonado received training with weapons and explosives.

According to Daniel Maldonado, his goal in moving to Somalia was solely to live in an Islamic state. However, he was charged with actively volunteering for terrorist activities in the state of Somalia. During his training, Daniel Maldonado allegedly associated with members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. In January of 2007, Daniel Maldonado was apprehended by members of the Kenyan military. During this time, he was separated from his wife, who later died in a hospital due to malaria. At the time, the criminal complaint against him claimed Daniel Maldonado had been trying to elude law enforcement representing the Ethiopian and Somalian government forces seeking those involved in Al Qaeda-backed terrorist activities.

Following his capture by Kenyan authorities, Daniel Maldonado was transferred to American law enforcement officials. He was then flown back to Houston, where his arraignment hearing resulted in his indefinite detention pending trial. At this time, Daniel Maldonado was separated from his three children, who had been with him up to this point. During this time, Daniel Maldonado agreed to plead guilty to a charge of receiving training from a terrorist organization in return for having charges of conspiracy to use an explosive device in another country dropped. If the latter charge had been filed against him and resulted in a guilty verdict, it could have resulted in a life imprisonment and a maximum fine of $250,000.

During his pretrial interrogations, Daniel Maldonado was inconsistent in admitting to his training with Al Qaeda representatives, as well as inconsistent in his statements about his willingness to participate in activities which could harm American citizens. As part of his trial, charges were filed against Daniel Maldonado by an FBI agent. Investigation and prosecution was handled by members of the FBI, as well as members of the Houston Police Department, the Department of State, and the offices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In anticipation of his sentencing, his mother filed a five-page appeal seeking clemency from the judge hearing the case.

Ultimately, Daniel Maldonado was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to a 10 year term in federal prison, along with a fine of $10,000. He is currently serving his sentence in a federal facility and cannot be released until he has served a minimum of eight years in prison. 

Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi

Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi is a businessman who has been designated a terrorist by the American government. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi was involved in multiple lawsuits concerning his alleged involvement in that as well as other terrorist activities.

The legal actions taken by Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi commenced in December of 2001. At this time, he filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of being labeled a terrorist suspect by the American government. In this lawsuit, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi also challenged the freezing of his assets by the European Union on the grounds that this had occurred without due process of the law. In 2004, his request to have his terrorist label removed was rejected by the American government, which cited numerous evidence of his funding of terrorist activities. The European Union also rejected his request to be delisted in 2005.

In November of 2002, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi was added to the list of defendants in a lawsuit that had been initiated in August of that year by relatives of victims of the events of September 11. The case would eventually be heard in Federal Criminal Court in Switzerland. In it, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi was charged with funding the construction of student housing at a Yemen university while aware that the money being contributed was being repurposed for use in the attacks of September 11. In 2005, the Federal Criminal Court found Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi innocent of these charges.

In 2007 Switzerland concluded a six year investigation regarding Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi and concluded that he was not a terrorist. He was therefore removed from the list of terrorists maintained separately by Switzerland, which is not a member nation of the European Union.

In 2008, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi was successful in obtaining a ruling from the European Court of Justice that overturned sanctions which had been placed against him. The court agreed with the claims of the attorneys of Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi that the sanctions had been undertaken without due process, including failure to disclose the steps being taken or to share the evidence being taken into consideration. Following this ruling, the European Union provided Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi with a summary of the evidence against him and reinstated the sanctions.

In 2009, Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi filed a lawsuit against the American Department of Treasury, again alleging that the steps that agency took to freeze his assets ignored his right to due process. That same year, he filed a second challenge to the European Union's sanctions. The European Court of Justice ruled in his favor, citing the lack of due process.

In March of 2012, the lawsuit filed by Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi against the Department of Treasury was dismissed. In issuing this ruling, the presiding judge noted that the evidence assembled against Yasin Abdullah Ezzedine al-Qadi was in excess of 2,000 pages justified his being labeled a terrorist.

Drew Peterson

Drew Peterson is a former police officer convicted of the murder of his third wife in 2012. The prominence accorded to his case led to a great deal of media attention, as well as new legislation in the state of Illinois.

The legal problems surrounding Drew Peterson began following the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. When her corpse was found in a bathtub, an autopsy determined that her death was the result of accidental drowning. The year prior, Drew Peterson had married his fourth wife, Stacy Ann Cales. When she disappeared in 2007, the body of Kathleen Savio received a second autopsy, which resulted in the conclusion that she had been deliberately drowned.

In 2009, Drew Peterson was indicted by a grand jury in the murder of Kathleen Savio. Subsequently, bail was set at $20 million. Drew Peterson attempted to use a home-equity credit line issued by the bank JP Morgan Chase to pay this bail, but instead the credit line was revoked. A subsequent decision by the presiding judge ruled that Drew Peterson would remain in custody as a flight risk.

In 2008, the Illinois legislature passed a new law allowing for "hearsay" evidence to be used in cases where someone who was killed or disappeared to prevent their testimony spoke to a witness available to indirectly report their evidence. However, in pretrial hearings, defense attorneys for Drew Peterson that there was not sufficient direct evidence to prosecute and convict him. The prosecution had built its case around statements from witnesses who had spoken with Kathleen Savio and Stacy Cales prior to their respective death and disappearance. At those times, Savio had expressed fear for her life, while Cales had spoken about her knowledge of the role Drew Peterson played in the death of Kathleen Savio. The prosecution appealed, and in April of 2012 it was ruled by a state appeals court that the prosecution could introduce this hearsay evidence.

In the subsequent trial, jurors cited two such statements of hearsay evidence by witnesses as crucial in their decision to convict Drew Peterson. One was the testimony of the pastor of Stacy Cales, who spoke about how she had told him about various pieces of evidence indicting Drew Peterson in the death of his third wife. Another was the testimony of a divorce attorney who had been in contact with Stacy Cales prior to her disappearance, who had similar evidence to report.

In September of 2012, Drew Peterson was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson appealed the verdict. In October of 2012, Drew Peterson dismissed his attorney Joel Brodsky and filed a motion for a new trial listing 14 alleged instances of malpractice. In particular, the motion singled out the decision to call the divorce attorney to the stand as a defense witness despite Drew Peterson's desire not to do so.

Wilfred Von der Ahe

Wilfred Von der Ahe co-founded the Vons supermarket chain, often cited as the first super market. The first such location was opened in 1948. A decade later they had become the third largest supermarket chain in the Los Angeles area. In 1960 Vons acquired a competitor, Shopping Food Bag Stores.

This purchase made by the company of Wilfred Von der Ahe was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, which alleged that this purchase was a violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, an important piece of anti-trust legislation. The case eventually was heard by the Supreme Court, which ruled on the case in 1966.

In considering United States v. Von's Grocery Store, the Supreme Court had to rule upon whether the action taken by the company of Wilfred Von der Ahe had violated section 7. When Vons and Shopping Food Bag Stores were combined, the total market share was just less than eight percent. Five of the justices agreed that this combined market share was a violation of section 7 and posed antitrust problems, while two justices dissented, one wrote a separate concurring opinion, and one abstained.

In ruling against Wilfred Von der Ahe, the majority opinion wrote that Section 7 was explicitly intended to guard against companies gaining excessive control of a particular market share. The majority opinion went on to note that this was especially the case in markets which were continuously consolidating the number of competitors, creating an anti-competitive, monopolistic market. In his separate concurrence, justice Byron White noted that the consolidation of market shares in Southern California gave eight firms control over more than 40% of the market. Therefore, he continued, any merger involving one of these eight leading companies was subject challenge under Section 7.

In their dissenting opinion, two justices outlined several reasons why they felt the acquisition was not subject to legal challenge. Among other details, the company noted that half of the stores owned by Wilfred Von der Ahe and his company were not in a geographical position to compete with Shopping Food Bag Stores in other ways. The dissenting opinion went on to express a concern that restricting these type of mergers might itself create an anti-competitive market environment.

As a result of the majority opinion's ruling, Wilfred Von der Ahe's company was ordered to sell off all of the Shopping Bag Food Stores it had acquired. Following this verdict, the Supreme Court was subjected to criticism from businesses which claimed the precedent set made any merger vulnerable to this type of challenge. As a partial result of this criticism, in 1968 the Department of Justice issued its first set of Horizontal Merger Guidelines, which set specific thresholds, thereby codifying a system for evaluating the legality of a proposed merger. These guidelines also stipulated that mergers which resulted in a market share of less than eight percent were unlikely to be challenged. These guidelines were revised and issued in 1992, and again in 2010.