Legal News

News

Top Headlines

[07/02] DEA joins Michael Jackson death probe
[07/02] As deficit grows, Calif. prepares to issue IOUs
[07/02] Companies pledge more openness about Web tracking
[07/02] SC governor silent as clamor grows for resignation
[07/01] Court rulings loom on campaign funds, civil rights

More...

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[07/02] Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation
In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.

[07/01] Huber v. Jackson
In a dispute over church property, trial court's grant of summary judgment for the general church and its diocese is affirmed where: 1) under the California Supreme Court's holding in the Episcopal Church Cases, the local parish church holds the property in question in trust for the Episcopal Church and the Los Angeles Diocese, and by disaffiliating from the church defendants and their new parish under another church have no right in the property; 2) the court did not err in rejecting defendant's collateral estoppel argument as the case defendant relies on is distinguishable largely due to the passage of time and there is also now Supreme Court precedent on the matter; and 3) the court did not err in determining that after defendants voted for disaffiliation, their purported amendment of the articles of incorporation and bylaws to make the corporation part of the Anglican Church were a legal nullity, or ultra vires.

[07/01] County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County
Petition for writ of mandate to overrule a trial court ruling regarding rights related to possession of medical marijuana is denied where the Constitution and laws of the state provide real party in interest Williams relief at law to bring a civil action based on a violation of his constitutional rights, and seek an adjudication as to whether the deputy had probable cause to order Williams to destroy his property or whether a lack of probable cause led to a violation of his constitutional rights.

[07/01] People v. Johndrow
Trial court order committing defendant to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) for an indeterminate term following a jury's finding that he is a sexually violent predator is affirmed where: 1) the commitment to the DMH for an indeterminate term of custody does not violate defendant's due process rights as sexually violent predators are afforded a full panoply of due process protections under sections 6605 and 6608 before being committed; and 2) the commitment for an indeterminate term does not violate his equal protection rights as defendant has neither shown nor attempted to show that sexually violent predators are similarly situated with mentally disordered offenders and persons committed because they were found not guilty by reason of insanity.

[07/01] Nelson v. Miller
In a prisoner civil rights action brought under the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's religious exercise was substantially burdened by the procedural requirements for obtaining a religious diet and by defendant's refusal to grant him a non-meat diet on Fridays and during Lent; 2) the court properly held there was no violation of the Establishment Clause as there were valid neutral reasons for defendant's actions; 3) the court properly held that sovereign immunity bars any suit against defendant in his official capacity as prison chaplain under Section 1983 and RLUIPA; and 4) the court erred in holding determining that the IRFRA allows Illinois prison officials to be sued in their official capacities in federal court. However, before damages are assessed the case is remanded to determine whether defendant's procedures and conduct were in furtherance of a compelling government interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest, and whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

More...

Asset Forfeiture

[06/23] Transportes Navieros y Terrestres S.A. v. Fairmount Heavy Transport N.V.
District court order granting defendant's motion to reduce the amount held by maritime attachment pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions is affirmed where defendant demonstrated good cause to reduce the amount of the attachment, and the district court properly exercised its discretion in drawing the preliminary conclusion that plaintiff was likely to recover only the costs it incurred in securing the release of the Vessel and in thus reducing the amount of the attachment.

[05/29] People v. Ten Thousand One Hundred Fifty Three Dollars and Thirty Eight Cents
Trial court judgment for plaintiff in connection with forfeiture proceedings related to $10,153.38 seized by the LAPD at the time of arrest is reversed and remanded where the forfeiture action was not tried in conjunction with the underlying criminal offense as required by Health and Safety Code sec. 11488.4 (i)(3).

[05/27] Thompson v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
In an action involving seized assets related to a bankruptcy proceeding, district court judgment is reversed where: 1) defendant exercised control over property belonging to plaintiff's bankruptcy estate when it held onto the vehicle and refused to return it to the estate upon request, in violation of Bankruptcy Code sec. 362(a)(3); and 2) defendant must relinquish possession of the vehicle as a creditor is required to immediately return a seized asset in which a debtor has an equity interest to the debtor's estate upon his filing of Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and then it can seek adequate protection of its interests in bankruptcy court.

[05/27] US v. Hoffman-Vaile
Defendant's conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice are affirmed in part, where 18 U.S.C. section 1519 governed Defendant's alteration of records sought by a grand jury because the proceedings related to a Medicare fraud investigation; but reversed in part, where the District Court miscalculated the amount of the forfeiture judgment.

[04/29] US v. Saccoccia
District court grant of motion by the government to forfeit substitute assets belong to defendant that were already in the government's possession but had not been specifically named in any prior forfeiture order is affirmed where: 1) defendant had no constitutional right to appointed counsel under the Fifth or Sixth Amendment to defend against the government's attempt to forfeit the substitute assets; 2) the property in question may be forfeited as substitute property under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1963(m) as it was not yet forfeited and there was still an unfulfilled judgment against defendant; and 3) there is no constitutional right in criminal forfeiture proceedings that factual predicates for a substitute asset forfeiture be found by a jury and not by a court.

More...

Evidence

[07/01] Trustees of the Chicago Plastering Institute Pension Trust v. Cork Plastering Co.
In an action brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in admitting the audit report into evidence, as the report was not inadmissible hearsay; 2) the court properly allowed the the auditor's employee to testify about the report as he was qualified to lay a foundation for the admission of the report; and 3) the court's properly denied plaintiff's request to recover their auditors' fees, as plaintiff's did not meet the burden of showing that the requested costs were necessarily incurred and reasonable.

[07/01] Moldowan v. Warren
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that Defendants fabricated evidence against Plaintiff in a criminal proceeding, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed in part, where police officers enjoy absolute immunity for any testimony delivered at adversarial judicial proceedings. Judgment is reversed in part where the critical factor in determining whether the state's obligation to preserve evidence is absolute turns on the nature of the evidence at issue, not who destroyed or suppressed the evidence.

[06/30] US v. Torres
Defendant's drug distribution conviction is reversed where the government failed to disclose evidence of a confidential informant's work as a DEA informant prior to the drug transaction at issue, and that evidence would have been material to the impeachment of the witness.

[06/30] Scott v. Phoenix Schools, Inc.
In an employment termination action, trial court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was substantial evidence that defendant violated public policy in dismissing plaintiff; and 2) there was insufficient evidence of malice, fraud or oppression to support the award of punitive damages.

[06/30] People v. Bamberg
Conviction for perjury, preparing false evidence, and concealing or destroying evidence is affirmed where substantial evidence supports defendant's conviction as the unaltered photograph offered by defendant may be considered false within the meaning of Penal Code sec. 134.1 since they depicted something other than what appellant claimed they showed and they were prepared with the intent to deceive the traffic court.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/02] US v. Pepper
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Davis
Conviction for firearms possession is affirmed where: 1) the search of defendant's vehicle without a warrant was permissible under the Fourth Amendment as it was lawful search incident to arrest, and thus firearm found in vehicle was admissible; and 2) the court properly ruled that the search was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement as well.

[07/02] US v. Schmidt
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Lee
Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.

[07/02] Roubideaux v. North Dakota Dep't of Corr. and Rehabilitation
In a sex discrimination action brought by female prison inmates, district court grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the female inmates had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the two challenged gender-explicit statutes; 2) the evidence in the record raises no inference of gender discrimination in the decision-making process because the statutes in question substantially relate to the important government objective of providing adequate segregated housing for female inmates, and any equal protection claim arising out the inmates' previous housing was mooted by their transfer to the Correction and Rehabilitation Center; 3) prison industry assignments were not subject to Title IX as the primary purpose of the program is employment, not education; and 4) the vocational education programs were within the scope of Title IX, and the district court did not err in finding that any differences in the programs offered men and women were a function of the location of the facilities and not gender discrimination.

More...

Sentencing

[07/02] US v. Pepper
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) this court's prior remand did not require the district court to grant defendant a 40 percent downward departure for substantial assistance as the remand was a general remand for resentencing and did not place any limitations on the discretion of the district court judge in resentencing; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant more than a 20 percent reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the cost of his incarceration; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Schmidt
Conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction over the offense as defendant's possession of a firearm manufactured out of country and ammunition manufactured out of state was sufficient to satisfy 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(1)'s required nexus to interstate commerce; and 2) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable.

[07/02] US v. Lee
Sentence for aiding and abetting assault with intent to rob a post office is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to the sentencing enhancements without requiring the government to present any evidence as there was sufficient evidence in the record to support each of the enhancements; and 2) the court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 2B3.1(b)(4)(B), as one of his accomplices struck a woman attempting to leave the post office during the robbery, thereby physically restraining the victim.

[07/02] People v. Farley
Conviction for first degree murder and other crimes and sentence to death is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for a change of venue and in its rulings on various challenges to the makeup of the jury; 2) the court did not err in denying several motions to suppress and in its evidentiary rulings, in various instructions it made to the jury, and in denying requested defense instructions; 3) the court did not err denying defendant access to data concerning his past employment and in prohibiting him from introducing evidence on that subject, and did not err in refusing to give proposed instructions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances; and 4) there is no merit to defendant's argument that the death penalty statute violates the United States Constitution.

[07/02] US v. McGraw
Conviction for drug possession is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress and finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the officers' search; and 2) the merits of defendant's challenge to his sentencing classification cannot be reached as defendant's plea agreement included an unambiguous waiver of his right to challenge the district court's sentencing determinations.

More...