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. Supreme Court, May 12, 2008
Gonzales v. US, No. 06–11612
Express consent by counsel suffices to permit a magistrate judge to preside over jury selection in a felony trial, pursuant to the authorization in the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(3).

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Wilder, No. 06-2213
Conviction for possession, transmission, and receipt of child pornography is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the warrant permitting seizure of materials from his home was issued without probable cause; 2) the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish his knowingly receipt or knowingly possession of child pornography; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the photographs on which the convictions were based depicted real children, or that the images listed in his indictment depicted a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. .

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Curran, No. 06-2647
Sentence and restitution ordered against defendant following a conviction for wire fraud and money laundering is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court's calculation of the amount of loss for determining defendant's Guideline sentence was excessive; 2) the district court erred in concluding that the scheme involved more than 250 victims for purposes of a six-level sentencing enhancement; and 3) the restitution order amount was erroneous due to an absence of a causal link between the criminal offense and the loss amount.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Marcano, No. 07-1050
Sentence for aiding and abetting the receipt and possession of an illegally modified firearm is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not impose a period of incarceration and supervised release involving home confinement in excess of the statutory maximum; 2) defendant's argument that a district court may not impose "any" period of home detention following incarceration was tenuous at best, and he failed to cite any applicable precedent; and 3) in any event, any error was not plain.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Bucci, No. 06-2746, 07-1087
Conviction for drug- and firearm-related offenses, as well as, witness tampering and making false statements to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) deficient trial counsel performance in violation of Sixth Amendment; 2) a denial of a motion to sever; 3) alleged structural error by the district court in closing the courtroom to the public on two occasions; 4) whether the district court permitted a constructive amendment of the indictment; 5) the sufficiency of the evidence; 6) erroneous jury instructions; 7) Sixth Amendment violation in the court's application of sentencing guidelines; and 8) a ruling allowing the government to redact portions of the recording and transcript of a conversation over a request for inclusion for impeachment purposes.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Douglas, No. 06-0581
Conviction for killing a person in connection with an attempt to steal money from ATM machines is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) being charged with an offense punishable by death entitled him to representation by two attorneys, and the district court erred in dismissing one of his two appointed attorneys after the government stated that it would not seek death penalty; 2) the government engaged in impermissible discrimination in the use of a peremptory challenge; 3) there were various errors in connection with the eyewitness identification evidence admitted against him; and 4) evidence obtained in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination should have been excluded from evidence in the government's rebuttal case.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
U.S. v. Lentz, No. 06-4691
A conviction for interstate kidnapping resulting in the death of defendant's ex-wife is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether a jury instruction given by the district court constructively amended the indictment; 2) denial of pre-trial motions to suppress testimony from a jail informant about a murder-for-hire plot; 3) denial of a motion to suppress a recorded telephone conversation between defendant and his counsel in which the murder-for-hire plot was discussed; 4) whether admission of recorded conversations as redacted were in violation of the rule of completeness as set in Fed R. Evid. 106; 5) admission of hearsay statements made by the victim; 6) admission of a missing person poster as unduly prejudicial; 7) a denial of a motion for recusal based on the court's alleged prejudgment on the ultimate issue of guilt; and 8) the sufficiency of the evidence to prove various elements of the kidnapping charge.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
U.S. v. Black, No. 06-4986
In a prosecution for firearms possession and drug possession, defendant's sentence and a denial of his motion to suppress are affirmed where: 1) the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's encounter with police would give rise to reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop and a subsequent pat down; and 2) there was no error in an upward departure from the recommended Guidelines sentence based on the substantial underrepresentation of the defendant's criminal history.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
U.S. v. Sanchez, No. 07-30578
Where, at the time of sentencing there is no guideline in effect for the particular offense of conviction, and the Sentencing Commission has promulgated a proposed guideline applicable to the offense of conviction, the district court's failure to consider the proposed guideline when sentencing the defendant may result in reversible plain error. The imposition of a 60-month sentence for defendant's failure to register pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is vacated and remanded where: 1) the court's failure to consider proposed guidelines that existed at the time before sentencing constituted plain error; and 2) defendant's right were affected since he could show that but for the misapplication of the Guidelines he could have received a lesser sentence.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
U.S. v. Hildenbrand, No. 07-10210, 07-10211
Defendants' guilty plea convictions for defrauding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are affirmed over claims of error regarding the sufficiency of the factual resumes submitted in support of defendants' guilty pleas.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Skinner v. Quarterman, No. 07-70017
An application for a certificate of appealability (COA) from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied in part and granted in part where: 1) the decision not to test DNA evidence from the crime scene did not rise to ineffective assistance of counsel since it was an informed, strategic decision; 2) failure to impeach a witness does not amount to a serious error ; 3) failure to present evidence that defendant was allergic to codeine caused no prejudice; 4) COA is granted as to the issue of the failure to obtain a blood spatter report; 5) COA is granted as to the claim of failure to present testimony of an additional witness.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
U.S. v. Igbinosun, No. 07-20075
A conviction for importing a controlled substance is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether waiver of a jury trial was knowing and intelligent; 2) a failure of the district court to permit defendant to make a closing argument; and 3) whether the verdicts on a count of possession with intent to distribute and the importation count were inconsistent, or premised on an error of law.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Harden-Bey v. Rutter, No. 06-1473
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against several employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections challenging plaintiff's placement and continued confinement in administrative segregation, dismissal pursuant to section 1997e(c) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing a due process claim on the ground that the duration of plaintiff's prison discipline, three years and counting, does not affect whether he has a protected liberty interest; but 2) he failed to state a cognizable cruel-and-unusual-punishment claim or a cognizable equal protection claim.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Jackson v. McKee, No. 07-1247
Denial of a habeas petition from convictions for felony murder and carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony is affirmed where state court decisions were neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent, in denying claims that: 1) petitioner's confession was involuntary; 2) a Miranda waiver was not knowing or intelligent; and 3) the admission of certain non-testimonial hearsay statements violated the Confrontation Clause.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Lockett v. Suardini, No. 06-2392
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Samuel v. Frank, No. 07-1243
In a prosecution for sexual assault of a minor, denial of habeas corpus relief is affirmed over claims that the court inappropriately admitted testimony which the police had allegedly coerced from the minor by threatening to keep the minor away from her newborn child.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
U.S. v. Hatten-Lubick, No. 06-4310
Defendant's conviction and sentence for drug-related offenses is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction for conspiracy; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel; 3) the court's calculation of the drug quantity which could be attributable to the defendant; 4) the increase in the sentence based on his supervisory role in the offense; and 5) the judge's failure to set a payment schedule for a fine.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
U.S. v. Watson, No. 06-2680, 06-2963, 06-3114
Convictions for robbing an armored car outside a bank are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) admission of hearsay evidence under the exception for statements against the declarant's interest; 2) admission of the hearsay testimony in violation of the the Confrontation Clause; 3) the reasonableness of the sentence; 4) an improperly drafted indictment; and 5) the lack of a schedule for restitution payments.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Walker v. Sheahan, No. 07-2817
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challenged.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Purtell v. Mason, No. 06-3176
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Buckley, No. 06-4092
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute a substance containing cocaine base is affirmed defendant's over claims that: 1) the underlying evidence was insufficient to support the drug conspiracy conviction; 2) he was prejudiced by a variance between the single conspiracy charged in the indictment and the multiple conspiracies proved at trial; 3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior drug distribution offense; and 4) the Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Montgomery, No. 07-2275
Sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by failing to follow mandatory procedures when calculating her sentence; 2) the district court erred by denying her requests for three downward departures; and 3) her sentence was unreasonable compared to a co-defendant of equal culpability.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Ironi, No. 07-2295
Conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred in refusing to admit certain out-of-court statements tending to exculpate him; 2) the district court erred in allowing the government to admit evidence of his prior drug crimes; 3) the district court erred in not giving the jury a buyer-seller instruction; and 4) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Johnson, No. 08-1779
An appeal from an order denying appointment of substitute counsel in a criminal case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the order is: 1) subject to reconsideration by the district court as the prosecution proceeds; and 2) effectively reviewable on appeal after final judgment.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
US v. Peralez, No. 07-1649
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a firearm, grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed and remanded where, even though the evidence was the fruit of an improperly extended traffic stop, the dog sniff which resulted in the seizure of evidence was not a result of that improper extension.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
US v. Coleman, No. 07-1970
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine is affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; 2) the sentence was unreasonable; and 3) the district court failed to make specific perjury findings to support an obstruction-of-justice enhancement. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
US v. Heikes, No. 07-2159
An enhanced sentence based on a finding that defendant was an armed career criminal is vacated and remanded where, under recent Supreme Court precedent, defendant's three DWI convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
US v. Cole, No. 07-2593, 07-2808
Conviction and sentence for drug-and-firearm related offenses is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that defendant's possession of handguns was part of the same course of conduct as possessing an unregistered shotgun, and hence relevant conduct for the offense of conviction; 2) the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm; 3) a denial of a downward departure was unreviewable; 4) an evidentiary ruling was proper; 5) there was sufficient evidence supported the conviction; and 6) the sentence was reasonable.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
Fresenius Med. Care v. US, No. 07-2299
In an ongoing investigation of hemodialysis provider's allegedly improper health care billing practices, denial of its motion to quash or modify subpoenas is affirmed where: 1) a "cold comfort" letter did not immunize it from further investigations; and 2) based on the record, it was not possible to determine which subpoenaed documents were already in the government's possession.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Miller v. Blacketter, No. 06-36090
Following a conviction for robbery, assaulting a public safety officer, and resisting arrest, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where petitioner, whose attorney moved on the morning of trial to withdraw from the case and to postpone proceedings, was not denied his right to the counsel of his choice when the trial judge denied the motions.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
Woods v. Carey, No. 05-55302
In habeas proceedings arising after petitioner was convicted of second degree murder and unlawful use of a firearm, dismissal of the habeas petition as barred as successive under 28 U.S.C. section 2244(b)is vacated and remanded with instructions that the district court construe petitioner's pro se petition as a motion to amend the habeas petition that was still pending before the district court at the time this new petition was filed.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
US v. Caruto, No. 07-50041
A conviction for importation of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is reversed where a prosecutor's closing argument, emphasizing omissions from defendant's post-arrest statement that existed only because she invoked her right to counsel under Miranda, constituted a violation of her right to due process. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Crandall, No. 06-50592
Defendants' convictions for mail, wire, and honest services fraud are affirmed where are affirmed where their proposed jury instruction on "intent to defraud" was not supported by law and the jury instructions that were given adequately covered their lack of intent defense theory. However, their sentences and a restitution order are vacated where: 1) the district court improperly relied on an Application Note to calculate the loss that resulted from the fraud; and 2) it was unclear whether the restitution amount was based on what was actually lost by the victims of the fraud. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Correll v. Ryan, No. 03-99006
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded for a new penalty hearing where defendant was constitutionally entitled to the presentation of a mitigation defense, but did not have an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence. (Amended opinion on denial of rehearing en banc) Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2008
US v. W.R. Grace, No. 06-30192
A U.S, Attorney's simple certification under 18 U.S.C. section 3731, that the government's interlocutory appeal in a pending criminal case is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence the district court suppressed or excluded is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding, is sufficient to establish the circuit court's jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Prior decisions to the contrary are overruled. Also, the district court in the case at hand had the authority to order pretrial disclosure by the government of its final list of witnesses and evidentiary documents and to exclude witnesses and evidence not timely disclosed in compliance with such orders. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
US v. Perez, No. 07-10289
A person on supervised release had a right to cross-examine the laboratory technician who tested a urine sample containing an illegal drug, where: 1) a test report itself stated the sample was "dilute"; 2) the evidence presented showed the person on supervised release did not have an opportunity herself to dilute nor add a substance to the sample; and 3) the result of the urinalysis was critical to support a finding that the person on supervised release had possessed or used illegal drugs. The circuit court emphasizes that it does not hold that a releasee always has a right to cross-examine the technician who tested a urine sample.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
U.S. v. Valadez-Valadez, No. 06-2341
Driving at a speed moderately below the speed limit does not, without more, constitute obstructing or impeding traffic. A conviction for for transporting illegal aliens is reversed and remanded pursuant to a claim of erroneous denial of a motion to suppress where an officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for violating a state law against impeding traffic, based on his driving about 10 m.p.h. below the speed limit on a highway.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2008
U.S. v. Ellis, No. 06-6340
A conviction and sentence for bank robbery is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the indictment was inadequate for merely citing to the aiding-and-abetting statute without including language describing defendant's role; 2) the reasonableness of his sentence; and 3) violations to his right to a jury by having his sentence enhanced by the judge based on a preponderance of the evidence.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
U.S. v. Pasillas-Castanon, No. 07-5101
A conviction for knowingly possessing a counterfeit green card is affirmed where: 1) the Speedy Trial Act generally does not apply to detentions based on civil deportation charges; and 2) the "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act did not apply in case at hand.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
U.S. v. Zamora-Solorzano, No. 07-3205
A sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine is affirmed over a claim that the district court erred under Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), in giving the Guidelines sentence "considerable weight."

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
US v. Padron, No. 07-11228
Conviction and sentence for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the government's conduct in investigating him amounted to entrapment; 2) the district court made erroneous evidentiary rulings during trial; and 3) the district court erred in its calculation of victim's loss amount and that it lacked statutory authority to impose a forfeiture money judgment against him.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
Ferguson v. Culliver, No. 07-13030
Denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas corpus petition is vacated and remanded where: 1) in the habeas context, the district court needed to review the state trial court record, rather than rely solely on the state appellate court's findings as to what the trial record contained; and 2) the absence of the trial record precluded the district court from conducting a meaningful review of the state court decision, even under the deferential standard imposed by the AEDPA.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
Hendrix v. Sec'y, Florida Dep't. of Corrections, No. 07-13117
Denial of a habeas petition is affirmed where: 1) the mere appearance of a judge's alleged bias was insufficient to violate the Due Process Clause in light of clearly established federal law as set forth by the Supreme Court; 2) trial counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating circumstances was reasonable and did not render ineffective assistance; and 3) the government's failure to disclose immaterial information about a witness did not amount to a Brady violation.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Newland v. Hall, No. 05-15981
In a death penalty case, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where the state habeas court properly applied the relevant and controlling Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
Reese v. Herbert, No. 06-14231
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
US v. Williams, No. 06-15318
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 16, 2008
U.S. v. Wheeler, No. 05-3038
A conviction for using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1) is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction; and 2) an instruction to the jury regarding the use of a firearm in relation to the underlying crime.

Supreme Court of California, May 12, 2008
Haraguchi v. Superior Court, No. S148207
Recusal against a prosecutor for alleged conflicts of interest, arising out of her authoring a novel with circumstances similar to a case she was trying, is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the court of appeal gave no deference to the trial court's findings of fact or its application of law to the facts when it chose to review the case de novo since it was a case of first impression and appellate courts have an independent interest in policing pretrial error; 2) the trial court found that there was no financial incentive to prosecute the case in order to increase sales of the book; 3) the court of appeals imputed the views of the fictional character to the author; and 4) the publicity surrounding the book was not so great as to render a fair trial unlikely.

Supreme Court of California, May 12, 2008
Hollywood v. Superior Court, No. S147954
Recusal against a prosecutor for alleged conflicts of interest, arising out of the prosecutor's consultations with the makers of a motion picture based on the defendant's story, is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the court of appeal gave no deference to the trial court's findings of fact or its application of law to the facts when it chose to review the case de novo; 2) the possibility that the case might be a capital case did not warrant a heightened form of review; 3) the possible disclosure of confidential information when the prosecutor handed over files to the movie producers did not deprive defendant of a fair trial; 3) the prosecutor did not intend to disseminate an inflammatory portrayal of defendant since the prosecutor cooperated with the movie producers before defendant was captured, and the prosecutor sought to have defendant portrayed as accurately as possible in the movie; 4) the prosecutor had no present financial interest in the movie and the possib! ility of acclaim in high profile cases is endemic to these kinds of cases; and 5) recusal cannot be based on the totality of the circumstances, since an actual conflict is required beyond judicial condemnation of the prosecutor's actions.

Supreme Court of California, May 12, 2008
People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.), No. S149123
Recusal of several prosecutors for conflict of interest arising from their alleged representation of the victim's interests is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court of appeal was incorrect in deciding that the prosecutor's zealous advocacy in preventing disclosure of the victim's medical records was in bad faith; and 2) the participation of the prosecutor in third party discovery process did not amount to advocacy of the victim's interests merely because their interests are similar.

Supreme Court of Delaware, May 14, 2008
Justice v. State of Delaware, No. 280, 2007
In an appeal from a conviction for rape-related offenses raising the issue of whether detective-witness's statement about obtaining defendant's date of birth from an "Automated Criminal Justice System" constituted a "prejudicial outburst" warranting a mistrial, the Delaware Supreme Court rules that although the prosecutor's question and detective's answers could have been better phrased, the trial judge's curative instruction rendered any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

California Appellate Districts, May 12, 2008
People v. Ross, No. B201673
When an arrestee lies to the booking officer by denying possession of a weapon and enters jail, the arrestee has violated Penal Code section 4574 and voluntarily chose to enter jail with a weapon.

California Appellate Districts, May 14, 2008
People v. Johnson, No. D050751
In an appeal addressing constitutional issues concerning the Sexually Violent Predator Act, an order declaring defendant a sexually violent predator (SVP) is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claims of not being lawfully in custody at the time which the district attorney filed his SVP petition were unavailing; 2) neither the imposition of an indeterminate term of commitment, nor placing some burden on the SVP individual to petition for release, violated due process; 3) individuals found to be SPVs are not similarly situated to those committed by reason of mental disorder or insanity, and thus the same treatment is not required for purposes of equal protection analysis; and 4) the current version of the SVP Act is not punitive in nature, and thus, the principles of former jeopardy and ex post facto do not apply.

California Appellate Districts, May 15, 2008
People v. Zarazua, No. C047726
In a criminal case involving an infant killed in a traffic collision while riding in a car with gang members who were fleeing due to gunshots fired from defendants-rival gang members' vehicle, a challenge to an enhancement allegation that defendants' personal and intentional discharge of firearms proximately caused the infant's death is rejected as the evidence was sufficient because the collision that caused the death was a foreseeable consequence of defendants' discharge of the firearms.

California Appellate Districts, May 15, 2008
Kruse v. Superior Court (People), No. C055654
In a criminal prosecution involving delayed preliminary hearings, a petition for writ of mandate requiring dismissal of information is granted where: 1) the delay in reconvening the preliminary hearing was caused by a failure to transport petitioner to court; and 2) there was no good cause shown by affidavit for this delay, which caused petitioner to remain in custody for several days without a probable cause determination.

California Appellate Districts, May 15, 2008
People v. Bordelon, No. A114023
In a criminal case involving a bank robber who robbed the same bank on parole wherein defendant claimed a lack of requisite mens rea for a robbery conviction by asserting his dependency on "institutionalization" as a defense, the conviction is affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) a standard motive instruction given to jury; 2) erroneous jury instructions; 3) exclusion of defense evidence; and 4) alleged prosecutorial misconduct.