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, August 01, 2008
"American Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union No. 7, No. 07-1832
In case alleging that iron workers' union conspired with local trade association to shut non-union contractors out of the structural steel industry in the greater Boston area in violation of state law, dismissal of state law claims as pre-empted by federal labor law is affirmed where plaintiffs' state law claims are pre-empted as per San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon. Grant of summary judgment on the federal labor and antitrust claims is reversed where: 1) the Market Recovery Program was codified by and operated through agreements between a labor group and a non-labor group, the statutory exemption cannot apply; and 2) there are sufficient genuinely disputed issues of material fact with regard to the nature and extent of defendant's allegedly coercive tactics, and whether defendant used those tactics to pressure neutral employers into agreements to refrain from using non-union contractors in violation of Section 8(e) of National Labor Relations Act."

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 01, 2008
Arar v. Ashcroft, No. 06-4216
"In an action brought by Syrian-and-Canadian dual citizen plaintiff alleging he was mistreated by U.S. officials in the U.S. and removed to Syria with the knowledge or intention that Syrian authorities would interrogate him under torture, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the allegations set forth in plaintiff's complaint were sufficient, at this early stage of the litigation, to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants not resident in New York; but 2) plaintiff did not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claim for declaratory relief; 3) plaintiff's allegations did not state a claim against defendants for damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act; and 4) in light of the determinations of Congress and applicable precedents, a cause of action for damages under the Fifth Amendment could not be judicially created for plaintiff pursuant to the Bivens doctrine. (Corrected opinion) ".

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 29, 2008
Monroe v. Beard, No. 07-3711
"In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit by prison inmates challenging the confiscation of legal materials by state corrections officials, dismissals of some claims and summary judgment for defendants on the remainder are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs did not allege an actual injury in their claim of loss of access to the courts; 2) defendants demonstrated a legitimate governmental interest in stopping inmates from filing fraudulent liens and judgments against prosecutors and prison officials, and demonstrated a rational connection between that interest and their confiscation policy; 3) plaintiffs did not provide evidence demonstrating that defendants' confiscation of their publications was constitutionally unreasonable; and 4) due process required only a post-deprivation remedy, and plaintiffs were afforded a post-deprivation process for the return of their materials"

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 01, 2008
US v. Wecht, No. 07-4767
"In a trial accusing a public official of misusing his office for private financial gain, an order to withhold from the public the names and addresses of prospective and trial jurors is vacated where: 1) the collateral order doctrine granted jurisdiction to hear the appeal; 2) intervenors-media companies had standing to challenge the order; 3) there is a presumptive First Amendment right to obtain the names of jurors prior to empanelment, which was not overcome here; but 4) a requirement that voir dire be conducted in open court would intrude upon the discretion of the trial court."

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 28, 2008
Gates v. Texas Dep't of Protective and Regulatory Servs., No. 06-20673
"Summary judgment for various governmental entities and employees accused of performing unconstitutional child abuse investigations is affirmed where: 1) certain Fourth Amendment claims resulting from the seizures of plaintiffs' children failed because the exigent-circumstances doctrine applied; 2) where there were Fourth Amendment violations, individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; 3) a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim failed under the same analysis as the Fourth Amendment claims; 4) section 1983 claims against individual supervisors failed for either lack of evidence or qualified immunity; 5) section 1983 claims against government entities failed for lack of evidence of a policy or custom of constitutional violations; 6) claims under the Texas Constitution were subject to the same analysis as the federal claims; and 7) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of requests for declaratory relief or a permanent injunction. (Republished opinion) ! "

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, August 01, 2008
Bayo v. Chertoff, No. 07-1069
"Petition for review of an administrative removal order for overstaying a visa is granted and the case remanded where an alien who gains entry to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program by waiving his due-process rights to contest future removal must sign the waiver knowingly and voluntarily."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 30, 2008
Hodak v. City of St. Peters, No. 07-2590
"In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against city and mayor for allegedly increasing police presence around a bar owned by plaintiff and ultimately revoking its liquor license in retaliation for other plaintiff's exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, judgment and award for plaintiffs pursuant to a jury verdict is reversed and remanded for dismissal where the district court should have dismissed plaintiff-corporation's claim, which was based solely on plaintiff-individual's First Amendment activity, for lack of standing."

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 31, 2008
US v. May, No. 07-3515
"Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with failure to register as a sex offender is affirmed where: 1) contrary to defendant's claim, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) applies to him; 2) prosecuting defendant under SORNA is not retrospective and does not violate the ex post facto clause; 3) he lacked standing to raise a challenge regarding the non-delegation doctrine; 4) defendant's due process rights were not violated; and 5) SORNA does not violate the commerce clause."

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 28, 2008
Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 07-56261
"In the context of the detention of an alien who is a legal permanent resident of the U.S., the circuit court rules that a prolonged detention must be accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards, including a hearing to establish whether releasing the alien would pose a danger to the community or a flight risk. "

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 28, 2008
Bryson v. Gonzales, No. 07-6071
"In a suit brought by an exonerated former inmate against a city and officials alleging that they falsely procured his original conviction and prevented him from obtaining access to DNA evidence that he believed would demonstrate his innocence, denial of a motion to dismiss one claim based on qualified immunity is reversed where the complaint failed to state a claim against defendant-former city police chief for denying plaintiff access to post-conviction DNA evidence for testing. "..

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, July 28, 2008
Douglas v. Yates, No. 07-10518
"In an action by prisoner-plaintiff against four prison officials alleging violations of his civil rights, dismissal with prejudice of the complaint is affirmed as to three officials but reversed against the fourth official where the allegations against defendant-supervisor allowed a reasonable inference that he was informed of ongoing misconduct by his subordinates, knew that they would continue to engage in unconstitutional misconduct, and failed to stop them from doing so."

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 29, 2008
Vann v. Kempthorne, No. 07-5024
"In a suit by descendants of Cherokee-owned slaves alleging that the Secretary of the Interior violated numerous laws and constitutional provisions by certifying the results of a tribal election in which plaintiffs were disenfranchised, the circuit court rules that the officers of the Cherokee tribe may be named as defendants as sovereign immunity protects a federally-recognized Indian tribe, but not its officers, from suit."..

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, August 01, 2008
In re: Navy Chaplaincy, No. 07-5359
"In a suit by Navy chaplains alleging that the Navy's retirement system discriminates in favor of Catholic chaplains in violation of the Establishment Clause, dismissal for lack of standing is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs conceded that they had not suffered employment discrimination themselves; 2) plaintiffs lacked standing as taxpayers; and 3) standing did not arise from injury alleged to flow from the messages of preference or disapproval inherent in the Navy's actions."

Supreme Court of California, July 28, 2008
People v. Allen, No. S148949
"A defendant in a sexually violent predator proceeding has a state and federal constitutional right to testify despite counsel's decision that he or she should not testify. the denial of the right to testify is subject to harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)."

Supreme Court of Florida, July 31, 2008
"Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., No. SC07-1470
In a class-action suit alleging that defendant overcharged day laborers for transportation between defendant's labor halls and its worksites in violation of Florida Statutes section 448.24(1)(b), judgment for defendants is affirmed and declaration that the statute was unconstitutionally vague is reversed where: 1) defendant was not liable to plaintiff under the statute because its transportation charges were within the statutory requirement that employers charge a "reasonable amount" for such transportation; and 2) because the case could be decided on those grounds, the court should refrain from deciding the constitutional question."

California Appellate Districts, July 31, 2008
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, No. D050333
"Judgment rejecting plaintiff counties' claims that Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP)is invalid under preemption principles and that MMP poses an obstacle to the congressional intent embodied in California's Compassionate Use Act (CUA), is affirmed where: 1) the MMP's identification card program has no impact on the protections provided by the CUA; and 2) counties' claim that those provisions are invalidated by Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution are rejected."