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, June 18, 2008
Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, 06-1196
In habeas proceedings brought by aliens detained at Guantanamo after being captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere abroad and designated enemy combatants by tribunals, the Court rules that petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. The procedures for review of the detainees' status provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus, and consequently, section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. Read more...
U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2008
Munaf v. Geren, No. 06-1666
In cases concerning the availability of habeas corpus relief arising from an international coalition force's detention of American citizens who voluntarily traveled to Iraq and were alleged to have committed crimes there, the Court rules that the habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command, even when those forces are acting as part of a multinational coalition. However, district courts may not exercise their habeas jurisdiction to enjoin the United States from transferring individuals alleged to have committed crimes and detained within the territory of a foreign sovereign to that sovereign's government for criminal prosecution. Read more...
U.S. Supreme Court, June 19, 2008
Indiana v. Edwards, No. 07-208
In the context of the Sixth Amendment right for defendants to represent themselves, the Constitution permits states to insist upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial under applicable precedent but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves. Read more...
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
US v. Riccio, No. 07-2604
Conviction and sentence for submitting a false statement on a background check form to his former employer is affirmed over defendant's claims that the district court: 1) abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial based on the government's prosecutorial misstatements during the trial; 2) erroneously instructed the jury on the intent element of his charged offense; 3) erred at sentencing by considering his sworn and counseled deposition testimony given in a suit he had filed against a previous employer; and 4) erroneously ordered mental health counseling as a condition of his supervised release. .
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
US v. Bermudez, No. 06-5119
Conviction for possession of firearm by a felon is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in admitting police testimony as to drug-related statements made by defendant; 2) the use of a "blind strike" method in jury selection was both constitutional and consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(b); and 3) comments made during the government's closing arguments were not unfairly prejudicial.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
US v. Legros, No. 05-2828
Sentence enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense is vacated and remanded for resentencing where, in absence of a more detailed explanation identifying facts in the record which would support finding defendant's commission of other felony crimes, the district court's factual findings on the record alone were insufficient to support the sentence enhancement. .
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
US v. Walker, No. 06-0594
Conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base is affirmed where: 1) although the government's egregious act of eliciting improper testimonial evidence from its witness should not be condoned, defendant's failure to make objections to those abusive evidentiary presentations limited the standard of review to plain error; and 2) accounting for the absence of a clear miscarriage of justice and other overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, the serious errors in this case survived plain error review.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
US v. Yusuf, No. 07-3308
Unpaid taxes are "proceeds" of mail fraud for purposes of sufficiently stating an international money laundering offense. .
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
Lora-Pena v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 07-3511
A defendant's conviction for resisting arrest and assaulting federal officers does not necessarily preclude a civil claim based on the arresting officer's use of excessive force during the arrest. However, to succeed on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must still show that the officers' actions were unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the arrest.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Poole, No. 07-4220
Grant of habeas relief reducing a sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base is reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the original sentence where: 1) the district court wrongly exercised jurisdiction over the petition because neither its issuance of the writ of habeas corpus nor its order keeping the defendant in Maryland transmuted the defendant's temporary presence in the district into a permanent stay that effected a change of custodian; and 2) holding defendant in Maryland for the express purpose of securing jurisdiction over his section 2241 petition was simply insufficient to circumvent the immediate custodian rule and create jurisdiction. .
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Hayes, No. 06-30429
On an appeal by the government following the resentencing of defendant to 210 months imprisonment from an original 360 months on a habeas corpus petition due to ineffective assistance of sentencing counsel, grant of habeas relief is vacated and the case remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim where: 1) the government's appeal was timely; 2) defense counsel did not object to the career offender enhancement even though a reasonable investigation would have revealed that he had a strong basis for objecting to the enhancement; and 3) the case is remanded since the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on whether defense counsel performed unreasonably.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
Grinter v. Knight, No. 05-6755
In a pro se prisoner complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983 for violations of due process, equal protection, the Eight Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, dismissal of the claims under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sovereign immunity bars suits brought in federal court against individuals in their official capacities; 2) there was no violation of due process in placing plaintiff in a four-point restraint for four hours or in attaching the restraints without a nurse present; 3) a failure to provide plaintiff with a medical report, and to make defendants available for questioning did not violate due process since failing to follow proper procedures is insufficient to establish an infringement of a liberty interest; 4) plaintiff's substantive due process rights were not violated when he was denied the ability to accumulate sixty days of good-time credits; 5) claims brought against defendants in their s! upervisory capacity failed; 6) a denial of administrative grievances or failure to act by prison officials does not subject supervisors to liability under section 1983; 7) an official capacity lawsuit brought against a state actor for constitutional violations cannot be brought under section 1981; but 8) the dismissal is reversed as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies and remanded for further proceedings.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2008
Mack v. McCann, No. 06-3257
Denial of a habeas corpus petition from a sentence to life imprisonment for murder is affirmed over claims of error regarding whether: 1) Apprendi principles were violated because there was no jury determination establishing the facts necessary to impose an enhanced sentence; 2) defendant never waived his right to a jury trial as to his sentence; 3) double jeopardy barred another sentencing trial so he should be re-sentenced to the maximum term of up to forty years; and 4) his due process rights were violated.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
U.S. v. Berndt, No. 07-2928
A conviction and sentence for possession of unregistered pipe bombs is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds; 2) a refusal to tender a proposed instruction on the statute of limitations defense; and 3) unfair prejudice suffered when the government played a DVD to the jury that showed defendant's living quarters where the bombs were discovered.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
U.S. v. Linder, No. 06-4414, 06-4415
In a prosecution for various counts of embezzlement and mail fraud arising from defendant's abuse of his position as a third-party administrator for various health and welfare benefit plans, his appeal challenging certain sentences is dismissed and his appeal challenging another sentence is affirmed where: 1) defendant waived his right to appeal the sentence he received in one case; and 2) although defendant filed a notice of appeal in the other case he did not challenge the 60 month sentence.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Carter, No. 06-2412
In a prosecution for extortion under the Hobbs Act, defendant's conviction is affirmed, but the case remanded for resentencing pursuant to claims of error regarding: 1) the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence; 2) the cross examination of defendant with respect to the credibility of other witnesses; and 3) the improper weight given by the judge to the Guidelines in determining a sentence.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
US v. Kirk, No. 07-3215
Conviction for distribution of marijuana is affirmed where the evidence presented at trial sufficiently corroborated defendant's admission that he traded marijuana for firearm. However, conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime is reversed and remanded where in light of Watson v. US, 128 S. Ct. 579 (2007), a person does not "use" a firearm when he receives it in exchange for drugs.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
US v. Gray, No. 07-3256
Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea is affirmed where defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal any issues relating to the negotiation, taking or acceptance of his guilty plea or the factual basis for the plea. .
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Vickers , No. 07-2184
Defendant's conviction for knowing possession of stolen property, interstate transportation of stolen property and conspiracy thereof, along with sentencing enhancements for his obstruction of justice are affirmed where: 1) the government adduced substantial physical and documentary evidence linking to defendant's transactions with stolen property; and 2) defendant's sentence was not erroneously enhanced with respect to the district court's finding that defendant was in the business of dealing with stolen properties, committed perjury at trial, and intimidated witnesses to change their stories during the investigation.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2008
Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., No. 07-55282
In an action against a city and its text message service provider arising from the city's police department's review of text messages sent and received by plaintiff, a sergeant and member of the city's SWAT team, a ruling against plaintiffs on constitutional and Stored Communications Act (SCA) claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) defendant-provider is, as a matter of law, an "electronic communication service" that provided text messaging service via pagers to the police department; 2) the search of plaintiffs' text messages violated their Fourth Amendment and California constitutional privacy rights because they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of the text messages, and the search was unreasonable in scope; and 3) although police chief was shielded by qualified immunity, the city and police department were not protected by statutory immunity.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
US v. Gonzales, No. 07-10326
A timely post-verdict motion under Rule 29(c)(1), renewing an earlier motion for judgment of acquittal after the close of the government's case at trial, constitutes a sufficient "renewal" of the motion to preserve the issue for de novo appellate review. Border patrol agent's conviction for drug- and firearm-related offenses is affirmed where: 1) a sufficient nexus exists between defendant's possession of the firearm and the commission of the predicate felony drug-trafficking offense to sustain his section 924(c) conviction; 2) sufficient evidence supported a jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute; 3) the district court did not err in denying a motion to dismiss a firearm charge; and 4) the district court did not err in accepting a jury's finding regarding the weight of the stolen marijuana.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Mendoza, No. 06-50447
A conviction for subscribing to a false income tax return is reversed and remanded due to a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right where, despite defendant's departure to the Philippines, an eight-year delay between defendant's indictment and arrest was a result of the government's negligence and prejudice is presumed. (Amended opinion) ..
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
U.S. v. Forbes, No. 07-2191
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses, denial of a motion to suppress evidence involving marijuana found during a search of the tractor of defendant's tractor-trailer at a New Mexico border checkpoint is affirmed where the challenged evidence was admissible because it was discovered through means independent of any unconstitutional action that border agents may have taken.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2008
U.S. v. Wittig, No. 07-3051
A conspiracy, bank fraud and money laundering sentence of 24 months imprisonment followed by a three year term of supervised release with special conditions, including occupational restriction, is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) procedural error in the court's use of the intended loss and gross receipts enhancements as guideposts; 2) consideration of the disparity in sentencing between defendants; and 3) whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable and not supported by the section 3553(a) factors. However, the occupation restriction is reversed where: 1) the court failed to explain how the restriction was connected to the defendant's abuse of a management position for a criminal purpose; 2) the court did not find that defendant would continue to engage in unlawful conduct absent the restriction; and 3) there was no indication that the court considered any less restrictive means. .
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
Brown v. Sec'y for the Dep't of Corr., No. 06-15269
Judgment dismissing habeas petition as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is affirmed where: 1) petitioner's motion for DNA testing was properly filed for AEDPA tolling purposes; but 2) the motion was not an "application for post-conviction or other collateral review to the pertinent judgment" for purposes of the AEDPA tolling statute.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2008
US v. Castaing-Sosa, No. 07-15490
Sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroine is vacated and remanded for resentencing where, although the district court's concern for the disparity between defendant's and his co-conspirators' sentences was an appropriate factor to consider in determining where defendant's sentence should fall within the applicable statutory minimum and maximum range, it did not provide a legal basis for imposing a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
US v. Askew, No. 04-3092
In a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, denial of defendant's motion to suppress is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) the partial unzipping and opening of defendant's jacket was a search; 2) unzipping of defendant's jacket was an impermissible search for evidence; 3) the government's arguments for an investigative identification search exception were not supported by precedent; 4) the unzipping of his jacket to facilitate a show up was not based on a reasonable basis for believing that doing so would establish or negate defendant's connection with the crime under investigation; and 5) the unzipping was not an objectively reasonable continuation of a protective frisk.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 20, 2008
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 06-7136, 06-7180
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for use of excessive force in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as well as common law claims of police brutality, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress when a police officer was mistaken for a criminal when he unwittingly landed in the middle of a drug bust, summary judgment in favor of defendant is reversed as to section 1983 claims and affirmed as to the common law claims where: 1) defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity against the section 1983 claims because of conflicting deposition testimony, which gave rise to genuine issues of fact material to both the section 1983 claim and the qualified immunity defense; and 2) the Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act barred plaintiff's common law claims. .
Supreme Court of California, June 19, 2008
People v. Harris, No. S037625
On an automatic appeal from a death sentence for first degree murder during the commission of a robbery, attempted murder, and three counts of robbery, all with the personal use of a firearm, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the adequacy of the appellate record; 2) the prosecutor improperly leading a witness in an in-court identification; 3) denial of a motion for acquittal; 4) admissibility of evidence of threats against a witness during trial; 5) exclusion of evidence of a witness' probation performance; 6) instructions on witness credibility; 7) the constitutionality of a series of instructions which undermined the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; 8) the sufficiency of the murder charge in the information; 9) a failure to instruct the jury that it had to agree unanimously on whether he committed premeditated murder or felony murder; 10) a failure to instruct on theft as a lesser included offense; 11) a defective special-circumstances! instruction; 12) refusal to remove a juror after a death threat had been made; 13) denial of his right to be present at three critical stages of his trial; 14) errors concerning the evidence in aggravation; 15) a failure to delete inapplicable statutory factors from an instruction; 16) whether an instruction was constitutionally flawed; 17) the imposition of capital punishment for felony murder; 18) various constitutional challenges to the death penalty; 19) cumulative error; and 20) violations of international law.
Supreme Court of Florida, June 19, 2008
Jimenez v. Florida, No. SC05-2373
A conviction for both first degree murder and burglary with an assault and battery in an occupied dwelling and a sentence to death, as well as denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) summary denial of various subclaims of the successive Rule 3.851 motion; 2) a failure to discover information regarding statements made by a witness; 3) failure to investigate and subsequently present evidence that on the day of the murder it was common knowledge that the victim had been stabbed; 4) a failure to present evidence of a note that could contradict a claim regarding a conversation about the stabbing; 5) a failure to disclose certain information; 6) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to question the general reliability of fingerprint evidence; 7) a failure to disclose information regarding the influence of an individual who allegedly orchestrated the investigation; 8) a failure to disclose manipulations with regard to a ! jailhouse informant; 9) a failure to analyze the claims of error cumulatively; 10) claims of factual innocence; 11) a failure of trial counsel and the state due to the fact that they involve newly discovered evidence of innocence; and 12) a denial of a motion to disqualify after the trial judge allegedly engaged in an improper ex parte communication with the state.
Supreme Court of Florida, June 19, 2008
Taylor v. Florida, No. SC06-615, SC07-1168
Denial of a motion to vacate petitioner's conviction for first degree murder and death sentence is affirmed and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus are affirmed and denied, respectively, over claims of error regarding: 1) a claim of newly discovered evidence; 2) denial of a claim that the state intentionally permitted false or misleading evidence to be presented to the jury; 3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to perform due diligence for the newly discovered evidence, to prepare appellant to testify, to investigate and present mental health issues, or to investigate and present mitigation; and 4) the constitutionality of his death sentence.
California Appellate Districts, June 17, 2008
People v. Tidwell, No. C054142
The procedure required by Evidence Code section 782 for admitting evidence of a victim's prior "sexual conduct" to attack their credibility does not apply to situations where the defense attempts to introduce evidence of the victim's prior false complaints of rape, not of sexual conduct. ..
California Appellate Districts, June 18, 2008
People v. Wilkinson, No. C054228
In a prosecution for burglary charges arising from defendant's entry into a separate bedroom of his roommate to download images from the roommate's computer, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed and remanded where: 1) although no illegal search occurred when the roommate-victim took compact disks from defendant's room, viewed images stored within, and subsequently showed police some of the images he had viewed; 2) nevertheless, an illegal search occurred when police, acting without a search warrant, directed the victim to show them additional images and, on their own, looked at some of the discs without knowing whether those discs were ones which the victim had already viewed; and 3) because the trial court erroneously concluded that no illegal search occurred, it never reached the issue of what evidence, if any, was subject to suppression for being tainted by illegality.
California Appellate Districts, June 18, 2008
In re White, No. F054327
Petition for habeas relief is denied over petitioner's claims that his trial attorney's failure to raise statute of limitations issues constituted ineffective assistance of counsel leading to his prosecution for and conviction of time-barred crimes.
California Appellate Districts, June 19, 2008
People v. Sons, No. B192825
In a homicide case involving a defendant who was retried by reason of prosecutorial withholding of discovery after his previous murder conviction was vacated, defendant's conviction on retrial of manslaughter with use of a firearm is affirmed over claims that: 1) double jeopardy barred any retrial of his case; 2) the trial court erred as a matter of law when it declined to give a sanction instruction from prior trials; and 3) the trial court erred in rejecting a proposed clarifying instruction on self-defense.
California Appellate Districts, June 19, 2008
Barnett v. Superior Court (People), No. C051311
Penal Code section 1054.9 is not an invalid amendment to the criminal discovery statutes. For purposes of applying the statute: 1) in requesting materials pursuant to section 1054.9, a defendant does not have to provide the People with an inventory of every single document or other item the defendant possesses already; 2) section 1054.9 does not give a defendant the right to have the court order duplicative discovery; 3) section 1054.9 does not provide a vehicle for a defendant to enforce any obligation the People may have to produce exculpatory evidence they did not possess at time of trial; and 4) an unsworn denial of the existence of any further responsive documents is not a valid basis for upholding the denial of a defendant's motion for discovery under section 1054.9.
