Legal News

News

Top Headlines

[03/18] Accused 'Jihad Jane' denies terror plot in court
[03/18] Grand jury subpoenas issued in Sen. Ensign probe
[03/18] NJ gay marriage battle back in court
[03/18] Atty: Ex-NY art dealer to admit nearly $100M fraud
[03/18] Gov't orders recall of 1.2 million high chairs

More...

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[03/18] Desert Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Oakland
In an action claiming that the city of Oakland's billboard ordinances violated the First Amendment, denial of plaintiff's motion to clarify the district court's prior declaratory judgment partially invalidating the ordinances is affirmed where, contrary to plaintiff's assertions, the declaratory judgment could not reasonably be understood to have struck down the entire scheme of sign-regulation.

[03/17] Tully v. Barada
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit claiming defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by summoning him to court and initiating juvenile proceedings without probable cause, district court's dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed as a plaintiff cannot initiate a section 1983 claim asserting only that he was summoned and prosecuted without probable cause.

[03/17] T.E. v. Grindle
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against an elementary principal and the school district's band teacher arising from molestation of several young girls by the band teacher, district court's denial of the principal's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed as the plaintiffs have put forth evidence which, if credited by the jury, is sufficient to create liability under the clearly established law.

[03/17] Rosin v. Monken
In defendant's 42 U.S.C section 1983 action challenging Illinois' mandatory life-long registration requirement, arising from defendant's 2003 guilty plea to a misdemeanor offense of non-consensual sexual contact in New York under assurances that he would not be required to register, dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the New York order was silent as to registration in any other state and, absent such language, there is no relevant provision to which Illinois must give full faith an credit. Furthermore, even if there had been such a provision, New York lacks the power to dictate the means by which Illinois can protect its public.

[03/17] US v. Caro
Conviction of defendant for first degree murder of an inmate and sentence to death under the Federal Death Penalty Act is affirmed and defendant's various challenges rejected where: 1) while several possible errors are recognized, they were not widespread or prejudicial enough to have fatally infected defendant's trial or sentencing hearing; 2) the proceeding adhered to fundamental fairness; 3) each aggravating factor determined by the jury was well supported by the record; and 4) cumulative error could not have caused the jury to weigh the sentencing factors any differently.

More...

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

[02/16] US v. $22,050.00 US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action in connection with a drug distribution and money laundering investigation wherein the United States Drug Enforcement Administration seized $22,050 from petitioner's office, judgment of the district court denying his motion to set aside default and entry of judgment in favor of the United States is reversed where: 1) in civil forfeiture cases such as this one, where the question is whether to excuse a known claimant's failure to file a verified claim and answer in the allotted time, district courts should analyze the case using the generally applicable Federal Rules (Rule 55(c)) rather than under the appellate court's requirement of "strict compliance" with the forfeiture rules; 2) the government would not have been prejudiced by setting aside the default; 3) claimant has asserted meritorious defenses to the forfeiture claim; and 4) on remand, it must be determined whether claimant was culpable under Rule 55(c) for the default by willfully failing to appear and plead.

[02/11] US v. Herder
Conviction of defendant for drug related crimes and sentence to 41 months' imprisonment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the direct and circumstantial evidence presented at trial was more than ample to support the jury's verdict; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a "mere proximity" jury instruction; 3) defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded as, on the record, district court did not understand that it had discretion to depart from the Guidelines, and was therefore, procedurally unreasonable; and 4) the order of forfeiture is affirmed as the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant intended to use the $1,223 to commit, or to facilitate the commission, of the offenses for which he was convicted.

More...

Evidence

[03/18] US v. Rocha
Defendant's convictions for (1) assault committed by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code section 245, as assimilated into federal law by the Assimilated Crimes Act and (2) assault with a dangerous weapon under the federal assault statute, are reversed where: 1) the federal assault statute precluded application of California Penal Code section 245; and 2) the evidence presented to the jury that defendant used his bare hands to perpetrate the assault could not support a conviction under the federal assault statute for assault with a dangerous weapon.

[03/18] Thompson v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst.
District court's grant of defendant's request for habeas relief, convicted of stealing a motor vehicle, possession of crack cocaine, carrying a concealed weapon, and receiving stolen property, is reversed as defendant cannot succeed on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim as he fails to satisfy the deficient performance prong of Strickland as he cannot show that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to raise a Blakely claim.

[03/17] Stewart v. Dep't of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families
In a consolidated appeal from a family court order terminating petitioner's parental rights and denying petitioner's aunt and mother's respective petitions for guardianship of petitioner's children, the order is affirmed where: 1) the family court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the expert testimony of court-appointed psychiatrists proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that petitioner was mentally incompetent; 2) the state made reasonable efforts to reunite the family; and 3) the family court's decision to deny the guardianship petitioners was supported by petitioners' mental health history and lack of financial resources.

[03/17] DeKoven v. Plaza Assocs.
In a class action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as survey evidence prepared by plaintiffs' expert was no good as a control letter was confusing and misleading.

[03/17] Brown v. Finnan
A petition for habeas relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, by a defendant convicted of murder and sentenced to two concurrent life sentences, is denied where: 1) court of appeals' finding that defendant received effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; 2) an in-court statement by one of the victim's mother was ambiguous and innocuous; and 3) an out-of-court statement that the courthouse should be bombed was more serious but bears no obvious relevance to defendant's guilt or innocence and defendant has not presented any evidence that any juror was privy to the remark.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/18] US v. Rocha
Defendant's convictions for (1) assault committed by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code section 245, as assimilated into federal law by the Assimilated Crimes Act and (2) assault with a dangerous weapon under the federal assault statute, are reversed where: 1) the federal assault statute precluded application of California Penal Code section 245; and 2) the evidence presented to the jury that defendant used his bare hands to perpetrate the assault could not support a conviction under the federal assault statute for assault with a dangerous weapon.

[03/18] Golden & Zimmerman, LLC v. Domenech
In an action against the ATF, seeking a judgment declaring that an answer to one of the frequently asked questions in the ATF's published "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005" is inconsistent with the Gun Control Act, district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed as the Reference Guide is simply informational and its publication is neither "agency action" nor "final agency action," as necessary for judicial review under the APA.

[03/17] Tully v. Barada
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit claiming defendants violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by summoning him to court and initiating juvenile proceedings without probable cause, district court's dismissal of the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is affirmed as a plaintiff cannot initiate a section 1983 claim asserting only that he was summoned and prosecuted without probable cause.

[03/17] T.E. v. Grindle
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against an elementary principal and the school district's band teacher arising from molestation of several young girls by the band teacher, district court's denial of the principal's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed as the plaintiffs have put forth evidence which, if credited by the jury, is sufficient to create liability under the clearly established law.

[03/17] US v. Ray
In proceedings involving defendant's motion for a lower sentence for his crack cocaine possession, district court's denial on the ground that defendant's 263-month sentence was not based on the Guidelines and that, as a result, defendant could not bring the motion is affirmed as, in the absence of explicit language in the agreement to the contrary, a sentence imposed pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement cannot be said to be "based on" the Sentencing Guidelines. An agreement must clearly reflect an intent that the sentence be modified when the Guidelines shift, and here, defendant's plea agreement did not reflect such an intent.

More...

Sentencing

[03/18] US v. Pena
District court's denial of defendant's request for application of the "safety valve" sentencing provision in U.S.S.G. section 5C1.2, which permits a two-level reduction for certain defendants who cooperate fully with the government prior to sentencing, is affirmed as the defendant admittedly did not give prosecutors all the information he had about the drug-trafficking offense for which he was convicted, and there is no exception to the sentencing guidelines that defendant could not fully cooperate due to fear of retaliation.

[03/17] US v. DePierre
Conviction of defendant for selling cocaine powder and cocaine base to a government informant on two occasions is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in its jury instruction regarding the wrongful inducement; 2) there was no wrongful manipulation in the case; and 3) the district court's instructions and the jury verdict accorded with the precedent, and the mandatory minimum sentence was properly imposed.

[03/17] US v. Llamas
In a conviction of defendant for multiple offenses arising from his role in a fraudulent sweepstakes scheme, as well as a sentence to 132 months' imprisonment and restitution order exceeding $4.2 million, are affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's application of the vulnerable victim adjustment was not procedurally unreasonable; 2) district court did not clearly err in relying on a certain evidence to find that defendant was a supervisor of the center's employees; and 3) district court abused its discretion with respect to the restitution order as it was not limited to losses attributable to the center.

[03/17] US v. Caro
Conviction of defendant for first degree murder of an inmate and sentence to death under the Federal Death Penalty Act is affirmed and defendant's various challenges rejected where: 1) while several possible errors are recognized, they were not widespread or prejudicial enough to have fatally infected defendant's trial or sentencing hearing; 2) the proceeding adhered to fundamental fairness; 3) each aggravating factor determined by the jury was well supported by the record; and 4) cumulative error could not have caused the jury to weigh the sentencing factors any differently.

[03/17] US v. Ramunno
In a mail and wire fraud prosecution involving a Ponzi scheme, denial of a victim's petition to the district court to amend its preliminary order of forfeiture contending that the victim was entitled to a constructive trust in the funds he invested is affirmed where, if the movant were granted a constructive trust and recovered his entire loss, the other victims would recover less than their pro-rata share of the seized assets.

More...