Criminal Law Library Blog

To view these cases distributed by Findlaw.com you must first sign in to Findlaw.com. "Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008
US v. Eirby, No. 07-1062
"A conviction for violating a Maine statute, which makes it a crime for a person to "engage[] in a sexual act with another person, not the actor's spouse, who is either 14 or 15 years of age and the actor...is at least 10 years older than the other person," 17-A M.R.S.A. section 254(1)(A-2), is a crime of violence for sentencing purposes."

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Richardson, No. 06-2506
"Conviction and sentence on drug and weapons charges are affirmed over defendant's arguments that: 1) the district court erred in refusing to sever several of the charges; 2) the district court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence of an alleged prior inconsistent statement; 3) the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress drugs seized during an inventory search of his vehicle; 4) the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender and as an armed career criminal; and 5) the district court erroneously failed to determine whether sentencing entrapment or sentencing factor manipulation had occurred."

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
Evans v. Thompson, No. 07-1014
"Denial of a petition for federal habeas relief is affirmed over petitioner's arguments that: 1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his state trial for murder; 2) the revised 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1) violates Article III, the separation of powers, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it restricts the capacity of federal judges to reach independent decisions and limits the sources of law on which they may rely; and 3) the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act so narrows the availability of habeas relief for state prisoners as to effectively suspend habeas in violation of the Suspension Clause."

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
US v. Pepin, No. 06-1462
"In case where defendant awaits trial on charges eligible for the death penalty, order excluding evidence of post-mortem dismemberment of the victims is vacated as: 1) to the extent that the district court excluded evidence from the guilt phase solely because it was excluded at the penalty phase, it erred as a matter of law; and 2) to the extent that the court relies on Federal Rule of Evidence 403, to exclude all evidence as to post-mortem dismemberment, it was an abuse of discretion."

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Phillips v. County of Allegheny, No. 06-2869
"In an action against various defendants for violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and state law, arising from a former 911 dispatcher's improper use of his job facilities to track down and kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, plaintiff's son, dismissal of the claims is reversed in part and the matter remanded with instructions to permit plaintiff an opportunity to amend certain state-created danger and equal protection claims, as the district court erred in various respects at the pleading stage."

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Hall, No. 07-2373
"A conviction and sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to willful failure to file income tax returns is affirmed over claims that: 1) when defendant entered his plea of guilty the court failed to exercise the "special care" required during colloquies in cases involving tied plea agreements; 2) the government breached a promise in the plea agreement to "[m]ake no recommendation as to the sentence"; and 3) the court imposed an unreasonably long custodial sentence on him."

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Boynes, No. 06-4841
"After waiver of jury trial, conviction by court of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, distribution of crack cocaine, and use of a firearm to commit murder in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime is affirmed over claim that the district court erred in finding that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to trial by jury."

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Gonzales-Terrazas, No. 07-50375
"A sentence following defendant's guilty-plea conviction for unlawful reentry of an alien after removal is vacated and remanded where: 1) because there was no evidence from which it could be determined whether defendant actually pleaded to "wilfully and unlawfully" entering a dwelling house, the government failed to establish that Gonzalez was convicted of a burglary offense that satisfies the crime-of-violence definition in U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2; and 2) the district court's application of a 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement constituted plain error."

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008
US v. Martinez-Larraga, No. 06-40489
"Convictions and sentences for drug-related offenses are affirmed over claims that: 1) the prosecutor commented on their post-arrest, pre-trial, silence during its rebuttal closing argument; 2) the government improperly bolstered its witnesses' testimony during closing argument; and 3) the district court erred by denying one defendant a downward adjustment of his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. section 3B1.2."

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Conatser, No. 06-5694, 06-5946
"Defendants' convictions and sentences on charges arising from their participation as corrections officers in a conspiracy to violate the rights of detainees and prisoners of a county jail are affirmed over challenges to: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support one defendant's conviction and the reasonableness of his 70-month sentence; and 2) the life sentence imposed on one count for other defendant's part in the denial of necessary and appropriate medical care that resulted in the death of a detainee."

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
US v. Allen, No. 06-5077
"Defendants' sentences resulting from their robbery of rare books from a university's special collections library and attempts to sell them at auction are vacated and remanded for resentencing pursuant to the government's cross-appeal, where the district court erred by excluding objects dropped in a stairwell from its valuation of loss, and correspondingly, from its computation of the sentencing range."

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008
US v. Vonner, No. 05-5295
"A sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) district courts may, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, find sentencing facts in applying the now-advisory sentencing guidelines; 2) defendant forfeited an argument that the district court failed adequately to explain its rejection of his arguments for leniency and could not show plain error; and 3) his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable. Read more...

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008
US v. Phinazee, No. 06-5730
Defendant's sentence, imposed on a remand pursuant to Booker, for conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine is affirmed over a claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because a downward variance was not large enough.".

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
State of Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc., No. 07-1999
"In an action against defendant charging fraudulent pricing of pharmaceutical drugs in violation of Wisconsin state law, an order remanding the case and sanctioning defendant is affirmed in part as to the remand order, but reversed as to the sanctions where: 1) the filing of a suit under the False Claims Act did not render this case removable; and 2) the paucity of appellate authority on the removability issue gave defendant a reasonable basis for removing the case a third time, and its appeal here was not frivolous."

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Beaver, No. 07-1381
"Convictions for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy, and making false statements to a federal law enforcement agent who was investigating that conspiracy, are affirmed over defendant's claims that the government failed to prove at trial that a price-fixing conspiracy existed, that he joined the conspiracy, or that he made false statements."

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Garcia-Meza v. Mukasey, No. 07-2215
"Petition for review of a final order of removal, arising from a conviction for petitioner's grabbing a police officer's fingers and twisting them, is granted and the matter remanded where the BIA's finding that petitioner's state crime of "aggravated battery of a peace officer" was a crime of moral turpitude, was based on a misapprehension of Illinois law."

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
US v. Shrake, No. 07-1790
"A conviction and sentence for possessing images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and transmitting them in interstate commerce are affirmed over constitutional challenges to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act relating to limits on defendant's expert's pretrial access to data, and a challenge to the reasonableness of his 330 month sentence."

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Johnson v. Evinger, No. 06-2103
"In a prisoner's suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against several correctional officials claiming that they retaliated against plaintiff because he tried to obtain evidence to defend himself against a disciplinary charge, dismissal of the suit is affirmed where plaintiff failed to comply with the authorized procedure for obtaining evidence to present at his disciplinary hearing, and thus, he forfeited his retaliation claim and the conduct he was punished for was unprotected."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
"Patel v. US Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3819
In a suit against the United States Bureau of Prisons and certain prison officials at a federal correctional facility alleging they violated his right to practice his religion by failing to provide him with appropriate meals in compliance with his beliefs as a Muslim, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as plaintiff failed to establish any constitutional or statutory violations."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Jumping Eagle, No. 07-1555
"Defendant's convictions for aggravated sexual abuse within Indian country are affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) abandoning its gatekeeping function and admitting expert testimony that speculated as to causation; 2) admitting two different hearsay statements; 3) allowing the government to employ several improper impeachment techniques; 4) permitting the government to make certain remarks during its closing argument, denying him a fair trial; and 5) denying a motion for judgment of acquittal."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
US v. Wysong, No. 07-1025
"A sentence for possession of pseudoephedrine, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the chemical would be used to manufacture a controlled substance, is vacated and remanded for resentencing as federal courts are not authorized by statute to suspend sentences."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
Solis v. Mukasey, No. 07-1297
"Petition for review of a denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT, based on a claim that a return to El Salvador would subject petitioner to likely harm or death due to his former membership in the country's military, is denied where: 1) a due process claim regarding a determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime was without merit; and 2) substantial evidence supported a determination that he was not eligible for relief under the CAT."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Birdine, No. 07-1375
"A conviction and sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed over claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the district court erred by finding that he had two prior felony drug convictions and that he used a minor to commit his offense.".

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Taylor, No. 07-1553
"Denial of defendant's motions to withdraw his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of ammunition are affirmed over claims that: 1) he was under the influence of marijuana and lithium, a depression medication, at his change of plea hearing and suffered from bipolar disorder, and thus he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter a guilty plea; and 2) the district court failed to conform the hearing to the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.".

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Love, No. 07-1624
"Convictions for larceny within a special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States and making a false statement to a federal agency are affirmed where sufficient evidence supported the convictions."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Pruneda, No. 07-2285, 07-2369
"Defendants' convictions and sentences for drug- and firearm-related offenses are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from defendant's house; 2) the sufficiency of the evidence; 3) improper admission of certain exhibits that were unfairly prejudicial; 4) the reasonableness of a sentence; and 5) a refusal to finding that one defendant was a minor participant in the conspiracy."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 04, 2008
US v. Jennings, No. 06-30190
"A conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) certain challenged evidence was properly held to be admissible as defendant did not suffer a violation of his Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights; but 2) he did not qualify for a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) as he had not suffered three prior convictions for "violent felonies" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(2)(B)."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Gonzales v. Knowles, No. 06-17054
"Denial of a habeas petition from a conviction for sexual molestation of a minor is affirmed over due process and ineffective assistance of counsel challenges.".

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Del Campo v. Kennedy, No. 07-15048
"A private company contracting with a district attorney for services related to a diversion program is not entitled to state sovereign immunity."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 07, 2008
"Plasencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, No. 06-73728
In the context of immigration law, failing to register as a sex offender in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. section 179D.550 is not a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I)."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
Harris v. Carter, No. 06-35313
"Dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely is reversed and remanded where petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling on the AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. Equitable principles require tolling of the AEDPA's statute of limitations in the rare case where a petitioner relied on the circuit court's legally erroneous holding in determining when to file a federal habeas petition."

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Brown v. Sirmons, No. 06-5071
"Denial of habeas relief from a conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the use of dual juries constituted structural error; 2) voir dire; 3) admission of evidence; 4) whether the convictions and sentence were the product of an unfair adjudicatory process, infused with prosecutorial misconduct and unfairly prejudicial photographic evidence; 5) jury instructions; 6) sufficiency of the evidence for purposes of an aggravating factor; 7) the constitutionality of, and evidence supporting, an aggravating circumstance; 8) the constitutionality of an "avoiding arrest" aggravator; 9) victim impact evidence; and 10) cumulative error."

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Gonzales v. Tafoya, No. 06-2034
"Denial of habeas relief from convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and other offenses, committed when defendant was fourteen years old, is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not unreasonably apply federal law in rejecting an Apprendi claim relating to his sentencing as an adult; and 2) the district court correctly rejected claims challenging his guilty plea, his counsel's performance, and the sufficiency of the evidence."

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 05, 2008
Gish v. Thomas, No. 07-12368
I"n case involving an unusual suicide by a prisoner committed in the backseat of a police car, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed as plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant sheriff's deputy was deliberately indifferent to a known risk that the prisoner was able to obtain the deputy's firearm when it was left on the front passenger seat."

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, February 08, 2008
US v. Hemphill, No. 06-3088
'Convictions on multiple counts including embezzlement, money laundering, false pretenses, and conspiring to commit such crimes are affirmed over multiple claims that the district court erred by: 1) abusing its discretion by refusing to hold a Kastigar hearing; 2) denying one defendant's motion for dismissal based on the Speedy Trial Act; 3) refusing to give a limiting jury instruction about the government's extensive embezzlement evidence; 4) admitting the government's summary evidence; 5) improperly limiting cross-examination of a witness; 6) finding sufficient evidence to support money-laundering convictions; 7) finding sufficient evidence to support convictions of other defendant; and 8) improperly instructing the jury on conspiracy."

Supreme Court of California, February 04, 2008
People v. Howard, No. S029489
"A conviction and death sentence for first degree murder, rape, and a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) notice of aggravating evidence; 2) Wheeler/Batson motions; 3) an instruction on evidence of flight; 4) accomplice testimony; 5) admission of photographic evidence; 6) an instruction on motive; 7) a consciousness of guilt instruction; 8) murder instructions; 9) a lesser included offenses instruction; 10) other jury instructions; 11) evidence of other crimes; 12) alleged coercion of a deadlocked jury; 13) the constitutionality of the death penalty statute; 14) the proportionality of the sentence; and 15) cumulative error."

Supreme Court of California, February 07, 2008
People v. Brasure, No. S072949
"A conviction and death sentence for kidnapping and torture murder is affirmed on automatic appeal over claims of error regarding: 1) group voir dire on attitudes toward the death penalty; 2) introduction of crime scene and autopsy photographs; 3) instructions regarding accomplices' and defendant's role in causing death; 4) a felony-murder instruction; 5) standard instructions on jury's consideration of evidence; 6) Griffin error; 7) instruction on weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances; 8) challenges to the death penalty statute; 9) instruction on mitigating circumstances; 10) a refusal of special instructions on mitigating circumstances; 11) juror misconduct; 12) international norms and the Eighth Amendment; 13) international law; 14) direction to disregard guilt phase instructions; 15) cumulative prejudice; 16) a victim restitution order and parole revocation restitution fine."

Supreme Court of Florida, February 07, 2008
State of Florida v. Whitby, No. SC06-420
"Upon reflection and further consideration the Supreme Court of Florida decides to deny review and discharge jurisdiction in the matter."

Supreme Court of Florida, February 07, 2008
Derrick v. State of Florida, No. SC05-1559
"Denial of a motion to vacate a conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence, and a petition for habeas relief, are affirmed and denied, respectively, over claims of error regarding: 1) summary denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising from the guilt phase; 2) ineffective assistance of penalty-phase counsel; 3) cumulative error; and 4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel."

Illinois Supreme Court, February 07, 2008
People v. Coleman, No. 104386
"Conviction for two counts of unlawful delivery of cocaine is affirmed where, when there is a joint federal and state investigation, evidence otherwise inadmissible under the Illinois eavesdropping statute may nevertheless be admitted if the recordings were lawfully obtained under federal law and if there is no official collusion seeking to avoid Illinois' stricter statutory requirement."

Illinois Supreme Court, February 07, 2008
People v. Manning, No. 104300
"Conviction for residential burglary as a result of a guilty plea is affirmed over claims that defendant's trial attorney had been ineffective in failing to advise defendant about the possibility of pleading guilty but mentally ill.".

Illinois Supreme Court, February 07, 2008
People v. Caballero, No. 104216
"In a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, reduction of defendant's fine by the per diem monetary credit which statute makes available for time spent in custody as part of the dismissal of defendant's postconviction petition is affirmed where such a claim may be raised at any time and at any stage of court proceedings, even on appeal in a postconviction proceeding.".

Illinois Supreme Court, February 07, 2008
People v. Wilson, No. 102562
"Conviction for possession with intent to deliver as a result of a warrantless search of defendant's home while he was on mandatory supervised release is affirmed where the fourth amendment does not prohibit a police officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee."

California Appellate Districts, February 04, 2008
In re J.G., No. C055155
"In case where petitioner is serving multiple, indeterminate life sentences in an institution located outside of California as a participant in the Federal Witness Protection Program, petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted primarily where: 1) petitioner has the statutory right to appear in person at his "lifers hearing"; 2) regulations barring petitioner from appearing in person at his or her parole hearing are void; and 3) respondent violated petitioner's right to due process by failing to honor its specific agreement that petitioner's hearings for parole consideration and determination of sentence would be conducted on the same basis as if he were in a California institution.".

California Appellate Districts, February 05, 2008
People v. Mejia, No. F051804
"Sentence imposed based on conviction for criminal street gang-related attempted murder and assault with a firearm, and possession of a controlled substance is reversed where the court failed to hold a Marsden hearing.".

California Appellate Districts, February 05, 2008
In re Rozzo, No. D049704
"Habeas petition challenging governor's reversal of a decision of the Board of Parole Hearings granting parole to petitioner is denied where the governor clearly cited "some evidence" that petitioner committed a crime that involved violence or viciousness more than minimally necessary to convict him of the offense for which he is confined."

California Appellate Districts, February 07, 2008
People v. Chien, No. H031010
"Denial of motion to vacate conviction based on no contest plea to possession for sale of methamphetamine is affirmed over claim that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to apprise defendant of, and to defend against, the adverse immigration consequences of his conviction."

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Ramos v. State of Texas, No. 0921-06
"A decision upholding a denial of a motion to suppress and a conviction for murder is reversed and remanded for a harm analysis where: 1) because police officers did not scrupulously honor defendant's invocation of his right to remain silent, his subsequent written statement was inadmissible at his trial; and 2) consequently, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress and in admitting his written statement in evidence at his trial, and the court of appeals erred in holding otherwise."

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Coleman v. State of Texas, No. 0072-07
"In a case in which an elected district attorney recused himself from participating in the perjury investigation and prosecution of defendant because of a conflict of interest, and defendant was then prosecuted by two appointed attorneys pro tem, his conviction for aggravated perjury is affirmed where, in this case, the trial judge was not required to replace the attorneys pro tem in a case that was set for trial ten days after a new district attorney's investiture."

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
State of Texas v. Crook, No. 0001-07
"A sentence for thirteen counts of barratry, which arose out of the same criminal episode, is affirmed where the trial court was required to order defendant's thirteen fines, of $10,000 each, to run concurrently."

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Otto v. State of Texas, No. 1311-06
"A court of appeals decision rejecting a jury instruction used for a conviction for felony driving while intoxicated is affirmed where: 1) a concurrent-causation jury instruction, that defines intoxication as the "introduction of alcohol, operating either alone or concurrently with an unknown drug," is not substantively different from a jury instruction, that defines intoxication as the "introduction of a combination of alcohol and an unknown drug"; and 2) the concurrent-causation jury charge in this case improperly expanded on the allegations in the indictment."

Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, February 06, 2008
Ex parte Moreno, No. 75,748
"On its own initiative, the court reconsiders a habeas claim in a capital murder case, grants relief and vacates the punishment portion of the judgment where: 1) the evidence that the applicant proffered at the punishment phase with respect to his troubled childhood could not be given meaningful effect within the context of the statutory special issues; and 2) the trial court erred in failing to give a separate jury instruction that would empower the jury to assess a life sentence on the basis of such mitigating evidence, notwithstanding its answers to the special issues."