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. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
Fieger v. Cox, No. 07-1103
In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests implicated important state interests, and because the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to raise their constitutional challenge in the state proceedings, the district court properly refrained from exercising jurisdiction in this case; and 2) imposing sanctions for plaintiffs' claims against the justice was not an abuse of discretion.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
Garcia-Aguillon v. Mukasey, No. 07-1595
Petition for review of a decision denying a request for voluntary departure and ordering petitioner removed to Mexico is dismissed where: 1) the court lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. section 1229c; and 2) petitioner failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law to confer jurisdiction.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
U.S. v. Friday, No. 06-8093
In a prosecution against a member of a Native American tribe for shooting an eagle without a permit in contravention of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), dismissal of the indictment based on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge is reversed and remanded for trial where the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government's compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle.

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 09, 2008
Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 04-1411, 05-1027, 05-1039
Mall's petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, which held that it was a violation of a party's free speech rights under the California Constitution to require a permit applicant to agree not to urge consumers to boycott any of the mall's tenants as a condition to obtaining a permit to engage in expressive activities at the mall, is denied where petitioner failed to raise its constitutional arguments before the circuit court in prior proceedings, and waited until it petitioned the California Supreme Court for a rehearing.

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 07, 2008
Atamirzayeva v. U.S., No. 2007-5159
In an action seeking compensation under the Fifth Amendment for an alleged taking of property plaintiff-Uzbek citizen owned in Uzbekistan, dismissal of the takings claim is affirmed where plaintiff failed to plead a significant connection to the United States other than her property being located next to the U.S. Embassy.

California Appellate Districts, May 05, 2008
People v. Albillar, No. B194358
Conviction of multiple defendants for criminal sexual offenses and gang-related charges, as well as gang sentence enhancements, are affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to dismiss the entire jury venire after granting a Wheeler-Batson motion; 2) the trial court erroneously denied a motion to sever gang charges and bifurcate the gang enhancements; 3) admission of gang evidence violated their due process rights; 4) there was insufficient evidence to support a true findings on gang enhancements and convictions on gang-related charges; 5) the true findings on gang enhancements and convictions on gang-related charges violated their First Amendment freedom of association; and 6) the trial court erroneously denied a motion for a new trial.

California Appellate Districts, May 08, 2008
Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B190122
In an action wherein plaintiff attempted to set aside a decision by the California Coastal Commission denying a coastal development permit under the California Coastal Act, and sought for damages on regulatory taking grounds, judgment denying a petition for writ of administrative or ordinary mandate and dismissing plaintiff's taking claim as unripe is affirmed where: 1) the agency had the ultimate authority to ensure that coastal development conformed to the policies embodied in the state's Coastal Act; 2) the agency's reasons for denying the permit were well supported by the record; and 3) the agency only issued one formal decision which neither foreclosed the question of what development will be allowed, nor precluded plaintiff from submitting other development plans.