Evidence
[11/20]
US v. Miller
Defendant's tax evasion conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding settlement negotiations because that evidence did not relate to defendant's alleged embezzlement activities; 2) the district court properly refused to exclude defendant's spouse's testimony under the marital privilege because that testimony referred to acts, not communications; and 3) the district court properly gave a deliberate ignorance instruction because the evidence demonstrated that defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of existence of illegal conduct.
[11/20]
Perez v. Holder
Guatemalan national's petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's request for withholding of removal is denied as the BIA adequately articulated a reasoned basis for its decision.
[11/20]
US v. McElroy
Defendants' sentence and conviction for conspiring to defraud the US of employment and income taxes and to commit insurance fraud by use of the mails and for procuring false tax returns is affirmed where: 1) a denial of motion to suppress evidence found at a certain address was correct as the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause; 2) prosecutor's remarks regarding a trial exhibit did not constitute reversible error; 3) district court did not commit reversible error by admitting into evidence summary testimony and charts; 4) district court did not commit reversible error by allowing the prosecutors to elicit out-of-court testimony identifying one of the defendants; and 5) district court did not err in including unpaid state taxes in the total tax loss amount used to calculate the base offense level for sentencing the defendants.
[11/20]
Curia v. Nelson
In parties' dispute over the terms of a stock purchase agreement entered into in 1989 and several modification of the agreement over the next decade involving a small number of shares in two automobile dealerships and whether the contract also gave plaintiff option to purchase remaining shares, summary judgment in plaintiff's favor is reversed as extrinsic evidence is required to clarify what the parties meant because the contract as modified is reasonably susceptible to both parties' interpretation and is therefore ambiguous regarding the survival of the options.
[11/20]
US v. Hardy
In a prosecution for bank fraud and tax evasion, district court's exclusion of defense evidence on the ground that defendant failed to comply with the reciprocal discovery requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(c) is affirmed as the district court did not err in excluding the evidence, but even if the court did err, it was harmless error because the excluded evidence would not have created reasonable doubt.
[11/19]
Sanchez v. State of California
In a suit brought by a Unified School District, minor school children, their parents, and the Board of Education against the state over construction costs for school facilities, trial court's denial of plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate is affirmed where: 1) the State Allocation Board (SAB) and the trial court properly construed the applicable statute and regulation; 2) substantial evidence supports the finding that the certificates of participation (COP) proceeds were not encumbered; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in SAB's conclusion that COP proceeds are the type of funds that should be included when calculating a school district's ability to make a matching contribution; 4) the SAB did not act in excess of its authority when enacting the Regulation, and by deeming money in the district's general fund to be available; 5) substantial evidence supports a finging that the district possessed the $89 million in available COP proceeds; 6) the Regulation and the Statute are not facially unconstitutional, nor unconstitutional as applied; and 7) plaintiffs' argument, that the trial court erred by not making requested findings of fact and sustaining the State's evidentiary objections while overruling plaintiffs' evidentiary objections, is rejected.
[11/19]
People v. Rios
Conviction of defendant for carjacking and use of a firearm is affirmed as the controlling constitutional rule in Seibert is that set forth in Associate Justice M. Kennedy's concurring opinion as it does not abrogate the implied waiver rule first articulated by the Supreme Court in Butler, and thus the implied waiver rule, which applies to this case, is not rescinded by Seibert. As a result, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that defendant's admissions were admissible.
[11/19]
DeBurgo v. Amand
Denial of defendant's request for habeas relief arising from his conviction for armed assault with intent to murder and assault and batter by means of a dangerous weapon is affirmed where: 1) a state appeals court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's standard announced in Jackson given the sufficiently suggestive circumstantial evidence presented; and 2) defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
[11/19]
Jennings v. Jones
In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.
[11/18]
US v. Parker
Defendant's drug possession conviction is affirmed where the district court did not err in finding there was no Fourth Amendment violation in a search of defendant's vehicle because the stop was properly administered under the authority of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, and defendant was not unlawfully detained when he consented to the search.
[11/18]
US v. Johnson
Defendant's sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court is restricted to considering the materials outlined by the Supreme Court in Sheppard for the sole purpose of determining to which part of the Pennsylvania simple assault statute defendant actually pled guilty to; and 2) in the even the materials do not demonstrate the mens rea to which defendant pled guilty, his simple assault conviction cannot qualify as a crime of violence in this case in light of the government's representation that it does not seek to define that conviction as a crime of violence to the extent it is premised on reckless conduct.
[11/18]
US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket
In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where the was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.
[11/18]
Perkins v. Russo
District court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief is affirmed as, even with plenary review, defendant's subordination of perjury claim fails as the victim had identified him multiple time before he was ever even arguably pressed to testify by one of the police officers.
[11/18]
US v. Rogers
In a prosecution of defendant for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and for using the Internet to attempt to transfer obscene material to a minor, district court's exclusion of prosecution's Rule 413 evidence of two prior instances of similar conduct is reversed and remanded as the record creates doubt as to whether the district court fully appreciated the legal relation between Rules 413 and 403.
[11/17]
People v. Archer
Trial court's order placing defendant on three-years' probation for cultivation of marijuana and simple possession is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court's error in including the numerical limits set forth in section 11362.77(a) of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) when instructing the jury regarding the amount of medical marijuana that defendant could lawfully possess and/or cultivate unconstitutionally amended the Compassionate Use Act passed by the voters, but the error was harmless as defendant admitted he was growing marijuana for at least four other people and he proffered no evidence to show that he was the primary caregiver for any of them; but 2) defendant's conviction for simple possession is reversed as under section 11357(a), the instructional error capping the amount of marijuana defendant could lawfully possess was prejudicial because defendant himself was a qualified patient in April 2006, and as such, he was entitled to possess an amount of marijuana reasonably related to his own medical needs.
[11/17]
People v. Phu
Trial court's order requiring defendant to pay $24,752.35 in restitution to the Municipal Utility District (MUD) after pleading no contest to conspiracy to sell marijuana is affirmed as, under the circumstances, it was reasonable to use the earlier date of when the defendant subscribed for utilities rather than the date when the MUD first determined that power was being illegally diverted into the house.
[11/17]
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability suit against defendants for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products aboard US Navy vessels, trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed in where: 1) plaintiffs have not shown that defendant manufactured, supplied, or distributed the products which caused his exposure to asbestos; and 2) defendant is not liable in strict liability for failing to warn of the dangerous properties of those products or for a design defect in those products.
[11/17]
Windross v. Barton Protective Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's employment discrimination, retaliatory harassment, and hostile work environment action against his former employer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that the continuing violation doctrine is not available to plaintiff to overcome his time-barred claims; 2) it did not err in its concluding that there was no evidence of pretext in plaintiff's disciplining, suspension, or termination; and 3) district court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend and motion for reconsideration as his hostile work environment claim was time-barred.
[11/17]
US v. Pena
Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and carrying a firearm is affirmed primarily where: 1) the district court did not err in admitting the testimony of state troopers regarding fingerprint evidence and numerous courts have found expert testimony on fingerprint identification based on the ACE-V method to be sufficiently reliable under Daubert; and 2) the totality of the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
[11/17]
O'Neal v. City of Chicago
In plaintiff's second employment discrimination suit against the Chicago Police Department (CPD) claiming retaliation and sex discrimination, summary judgment in favor of CPD is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff provided insufficient evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action because she engaged in statutorily protected activity by direct method of proof that either of her two actionable transfers occurred because of her prior lawsuit or her 2006 grievance; 2) plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection under the indirect method of proof; and 3) plaintiff failed on her sex discrimination claim for the same reason as her retaliation claim, as she failed to adduce any evidence indicating that her actionable transfers were because of her sex.
Back to Main Menu
| 
