Criminal Law & Procedure
[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]
N-A-M v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner to El Salvador, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner's prior state offense of felony menacing was a "particularly serious crime" under 8 U.S.C. section 1231; and 2) the Immigration Judge's reliance on a Statement in Support of Warrantless Arrest detailing petitioner's prior offense was not fundamentally unfair.
[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]
Carr v. Dist. of Columbia
In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.
[11/20]
Mitchell v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons
In a prisoner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, the application is denied where, although plaintiff had only two "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and thus the PLRA did not automatically bar him from proceeding IFP, the court denied the application as a discretionary matter because of plaintiff's pattern of abusive litigation in the past and his failure to qualify for IFP status under the imminent danger exception.
[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.
[11/20]
US v. Thompson
Defendant's sentence to 28 months' imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base is affirmed as the district court properly attributed six criminal history points to defendant's prior convictions and two additional points under U.S.S.G. section 4A1.1(e) because the instant offense occurred less than two years after his release from his juvenile confinement, for a total of eight criminal history points and a sentencing guidelines range of 24 to 30 months.
[11/20]
White v. Howes
District court's grant of petition for habeas relief on the ground that the trial court violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by convicting defendant for both the felon in possession statute and the felony firearm statute is reversed as current jurisprudence allows for multiple punishment for the same offense provided the legislature has clearly indicated its intent to so provide and recognizes no exception for necessarily included or overlapping offenses.
[11/19]
In re Ronje
Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted as the assessment protocols used to evaluate defendant leading to the SVPA commitment petition is invalid as an underground regulation, and as such, the appropriate remedy is to order new evaluations of defendant using a valid assessment protocol and to conduct another probable cause hearing under section 6602(a) based on the new evaluations.
[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.
[11/19]
US v. Miller
District court's order to destroy 34 firearms and for defendant to collect just compensation from the government arising from his conviction of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms by a felon, is vacated and remanded where: 1) because the government did not commence a timely forfeiture proceeding, defendant's property interest in the firearms continues even though his possessory interest has been curtailed; and 2) as such, if the government does not want to sell the firearms for his account, then it must offer defendant some other lawful option, such as having a trustee sell or hold the guns, or giving them to someone who can be relied on to treat them as his own.
[11/18]
Harman v. Pollock
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendant-officers unlawfully detained plaintiffs and searched their home, summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed where defendants' discovery of marijuana ultimately gave them reason to detain plaintiffs, to seize the marijuana, and to perform two more searches of plaintiffs' apartment.
[11/18]
US v. Varela
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where, according to the Sentencing Guidelines, if a defendant possesses a firearm in connection with the commission of another offense, the district court must apply the offense level for the other offense if the resulting offense level is higher than the offense level as calculated under the provision governing the unlawful possession of firearms.
[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]
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. Skoien
Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(9) is vacated and remanded where: 1) intermediate scrutiny applies to defendant's Second Amendment challenge to the section 922(g)(9) prosecution; and 2) the government has done almost nothing to discharge the burden of establishing a reasonable fit between the statute's means and its end.
[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.
[11/18]
Hunter v. Ferrell
In habeas proceedings arising from a murder and robbery prosecution, dismissal of the habeas petition as untimely is vacated where petitioner's evidence, while not sufficient to establish definitively that the filing deadline should be equitably tolled, was sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether a causal connection existed between his mental impairment and his ability to file a timely petition.
Back to Main Menu
| 
