June 23, 2009:.

1. People v. Perez, 843, 5734/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4972; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899, June 18, 2009, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), ...

2. People v. Pereyra, 850, 579/08, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4975; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4891, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, ...

3. People v. Fields, 852, 4782/02, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4977; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4894, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.

5. People v. Parker, 411, 5117/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4967; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4889, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki Scherer, J. ...

6. People v. Wright, 854, 6795/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4979; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4897, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, ...

7. People v. Nieves, 839, 5912/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4970; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4882, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert M. Stolz, ...

8. People v. Dunnell, 3529, 613/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4965; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4888, June 18, 2009, Decided, June 18, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, ...

9. People v. Hogans, 654, 1437/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4118; 878 N.Y.S.2d 890; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, ...

10. People v. Nevarez, 630, 630A, 3633/06, 6046/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4104; 878 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3992, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, ...

11. People v. Veneziano, 635, 2283/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4107; 878 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3997, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, ...

12. People v. Jones, 659, 6099/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 4123; 878 N.Y.S.2d 891; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4004, May 26, 2009, Decided, May 26, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
The People of the State ...
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, ...

From e-mail by Kathy Carlson, Wyoming State Law Librarian.

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009
Polar Tankers, Inc. v. Valdez, No. 08–310
In a Tonnage Clause challenge to an Alaska ordinance imposing a personal property tax on large oil tankers, judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was designed to impose "a charge for the privilege of entering, trading in, or lying in a port.”"

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
LaSalle-Concepcion v. Toledo-Davila, No. 08-2048
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming wrongful discharge based on Plaintiff police officers' injuries suffered on duty, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where Plaintiffs had no constitutionally protected property interest in reinstatement to their positions. .

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. US, No. 2008-5084
In a Takings Clause action claiming that the U.S. deprived Plaintiff of the beneficial use of its property, summary judgment for Defendant is reversed where Plaintiff identified a cognizable property interest, namely fee title to land that could not be developed without regulatory compliance.

Supreme Court of California, June 18, 2009
San Leandro Teachers Ass'n. v. Governing Bd., No. S156961
In a First Amendment challenge to a public school district policy prohibiting political communication via school mailboxes, the denial of the writ of mandate sought by Plaintiff is affirmed where the mailboxes were a nonpublic forum, and the regulation was content-neutral.

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009
Nijhawan v. Holder, No. 08–495
Petitioner's removal from the U.S. based on his commission of an "aggravated felony" is affirmed, where the $10,000 threshold in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed a fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion, rather than to an element of the fraud or deceit crime.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009
District Atty.'s Offc. v. Osborne, No. 08–6
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff's claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009
Yeager v. US, No. 08–67
In an appeal from the District Court's order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals' preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Flores-de-Jesus, No. 06-2670
Defendants' drug convictions are affirmed, where the government improperly used a law enforcement officer as the first witness in a multi-defendant drug prosecution to provide an "overview" of the prosecution's case, but it was highly probable that the testimony did not influence the verdict.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
US v. Gonzalez-Melendez, No. 08-1497
Defendant's carjacking conviction is vacated where: 1) the District Court did not comply with its obligation to independently review the government's compliance with the Jencks Act; and 2) the record did not reflect that the District Court made any response to a jury note requesting copies of certain documents.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
Waldron v. George Weston Bakeries Inc., No. 08-2554
In an action challenging the termination of Plaintiff bakery distributors' routes, the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction is affirmed, where a voicemail "threat" by Plaintiffs' counsel to inform authorities about Defendants' treatment of its route-holders as employees did not constitute criminal extortion and thus did not violate the parties' agreement.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
US v. Jass, No. 06-4899-cr
Defendants' child pornography convictions and sentences are affirmed, where: 1) any Sixth Amendment error due to the introduction of Defendant's redacted confession was harmless; and 2) the District Court applied an unwarranted sentencing enhancement for using a computer to solicit sexual activity with a minor, but the District Court stated that it would have imposed the same below-Guidelines sentence in any event.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
US v. Lucky, No. 08-1939-cr
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where, when police stopped Defendant's car, they had reasonable suspicion in light of the fact that the automobile had the same license plate number and description as one used to flee from a shooting two days earlier.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
US v. Styer, No. 08-2951
Defendant's drug sentence is affirmed, where: 1) Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) motion; and 2) the District Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Defendant continued to pose a threat to public safety.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
Hagan v. Rogers, No. 07-1412
In an action by prisoners alleging that the prison failed to address a contagious skin disease, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed, where the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act did not remove prisoners from the definition of "Persons" permitted to join claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2009
US v. Jeffers, No. 06-5289
Defendant's drug and firearm convictions and sentence are affirmed, where 1) the lack of a reporter's transcript of the charge conference and related proceedings did not violate Defendant's due process rights and 2) the evidence linked Defendant to multiple firearms during the course of the conspiracy offense.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Gould, No. 08-4302
Defendant's conviction for failing to register as a sex offender is affirmed, where the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) does not link the requirement imposed on individual sex offenders to register to the requirement imposed on the states to implement the registration standards mandated by SORNA.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
US v. Armendariz-Moreno, No. 07-40225
Defendant's sentence is vacated, where Defendant's prior state offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle was not a "crime of violence" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, because the generic crime of violence or aggravated felony must itself involve purposeful, violent and aggressive conduct.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
Garcia v. Quarterman, No. 08-70003
In a capital habeas matter, the dismissal of Petitioner's second petition is affirmed, where Petitioner's petition sought compliance with an International Court of Justice opinion requiring the suspension of state procedural default rules, but the Supreme Court held that compliance with that decision was not required.

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
US v. Brown, No. 08-20038
In a wire fraud prosecution, the District Court's denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds is affirmed, where the Court of Appeals' earlier reversal of the verdict was premised narrowly and solely on the failure of the honest services charge against Defendants, and did not preclude other theories.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
In re Simons, No. 09-3109
In an action seeking a writ of mandamus under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) requiring the unsealing of the record in a criminal case, the writ is granted where the CVRA required a ruling on a motion to unseal to be made "forthwith," and the District Court had inexplicably delayed for three months in making a decision.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
US v. Pulungan, No. 08-3000
Defendant's conviction for attempting to acquire and export riflescopes to Indonesia without a license, under 22 U.S.C. section 2778, is reversed where the evidence was insufficient to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant knew that the scopes required export licenses.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2009
US v. Turner, No. 08-2413
Defendant's drug sentence is affirmed, where: 1) there were no examples of extraordinary inducement or unrelenting pressure placed on Defendant that would indicate sentencing entrapment; and 2) Defendant's complaints about the conditions of his confinement did not rise to a level warranting sentencing relief. .

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2009
US v. Douglas, No. 08-2655
Defendant's drug sentence is affirmed, where Defendant's challenge to his sentencing enhancements failed because the District Court applied the statutory minimum, and thus any error in sentencing Defendant was harmless.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Ruiz, No. 08-3360
In a drug possession prosecution, the denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment is affirmed, where: 1) warrantless inspections of commercial trucks advance a substantial governmental interest and are necessary; and 2) the Arkansas Motor Carrier Act provides a permissible warrant substitute.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
Cousins v. Lockyer, No. 07-17216
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that Defendant officials breached their duty to monitor whether Plaintiff's sentence was void and take steps to effectuate his release, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff's federal claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity; but reversed in part, where Plaintiff's state law claims were not subject to an immunity defense.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
Holley v. Yarborough, No. 08-15104
In a habeas matter involving a prosecution for lewd and lascivious acts on a child, the denial of the petition is reversed where the trial court erred in prohibiting Petitioner from introducing evidence that the victim had made prior claims of her own sexual appeal, because such evidence was clearly relevant to impeach the victim.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Overton, No. 08-30075
Defendant's child pornography conviction and sentence are affirmed, where 1) the evidence was sufficient to allow the District Court to find that the photographs at issue depicted sexually explicit conduct; and 2) Defendant's conviction complied with the Double Jeopardy Clause because 18 U.S.C. sections 2251(a) and (b) constitute separate offenses. .

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Leniear, No. 08-30199
Defendant's drug distribution sentence is affirmed, where Defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines because, in light of the grouping rules under U.S.S.G. section 3D1.4, Amendment 706 did not lower the applicable guideline range.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
Allen v. Zavaras, No. 07-1501
The dismissal of Petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed, where the District Court was not required to seek a response to the petition from the government before dismissing the action for failure to exhaust state remedies.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
McGee v. Higgins, No. 07-6243
In a habeas matter involving drug distribution, the denial of Petitioner's petition is affirmed, where Petitioner failed to show prejudice based on his counsel's allegedly ineffective performance, because there was no reasonable probability that the state court would have imposed a sentence of less than twenty years had counsel not made his alleged errors.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
US v. Hernandez, No. 08-6190
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where Defendant's prior conviction under Texas Penal Code section 22.05(b)(1) for firing a gun at or in the direction of another person constituted a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act because it involved the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2009
Cordova v. Aragon, No. 08-1222
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by Defendant officers, summary judgment for Defendants based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part, where there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether a policy of the city was the moving force behind any violation; but reversed in part where, when an officer employs such a level of force that death is nearly certain, he must do so based on more than the general dangers posed by reckless driving.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 17, 2009
US v. Barwig, No. 08-3062
Defendant's sentence for violating the terms of her supervised release is reversed, where the District Court's oral pronouncement of Defendant's sentence at an earlier sentence hearing unambiguously imposed a term of supervised release, and thus the court erred by sentencing Defendant to five years' imprisonment when it revoked that earlier sentence.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18, 2009
US v. Smith, No. 08-8019
Defendant's tax evasion conviction is affirmed, where the delay prior to the District Court's hearing on his motion to dismiss the indictment did not violate the Speedy Trial Act, as the Act did not require the dismissal of an indictment whenever the defendant files a pre-trial motion and retracts it at a hearing held more than seventy days later.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
Gardner v. Galetka, No. 07-4104
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of Petitioner's petition is affirmed where: 1) defense counsel made an objectively reasonable strategic decision in not investigating further or presenting psychological evidence at trial; and 2) a post-trial examination of the gun Petitioner used did not indicate it was faulty in any material way that would have caused it to accidentally discharge.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
US v. Robertson, No. 08-3126
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) Defendant's unconvicted conduct provided the District Court with an appropriate ground for departure under U.S.S.G. section 4A1.3(a)(2)(E), and 2) Defendant's criminal history and propensity to recidivate placed him outside the heartland of typical cases considered in drafting the Guidelines.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 15, 2009
US v. Docampo, No. 08-10698
Defendant's drug conspiracy sentence is affirmed where the District Court did not err in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, because the other conspirators either pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate or were not prosecuted in federal court, and thus they were not similarly situated to Defendant.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 16, 2009
US v. Sarras, No. 08-11757
Defendant's child pornography conviction and sentence are affirmed, where: 1) the District Court properly excluded a defense expert's testimony because no record evidence explained the expert's methodology; and 2) government witnesses testified that child pornography cases usually involve multiple images of multiple children and Defendant had no such images, so additional testimony to that effect from Defendant's expert would have been cumulative.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 19, 2009
US v. Elso, No. 06-14954
The denial of Defendant's motion to reconsider his money laundering conviction is affirmed, where the District Court lacked authority to hear Defendant's Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B) motion because it was untimely, as Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari did not toll the time for moving to reconsider.

Supreme Court of California, June 15, 2009
People v. Avila, No. S078664
In a capital murder matter, Defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) because defense counsel did not request Keenan counsel, the trial court did not fail to rule on such a request; and 2) Defendant pointed to no particular characteristic of the participants in the photo lineups at issue that made the lineups impermissibly suggestive.

Supreme Court of California, June 15, 2009
People v. Dykes, No. S050851
In a capital murder matter, Defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's credibility determinations regarding the voluntariness of Defendant's conviction were amply supported by the evidence; and 2) Defendant failed to object to the alleged bolstering of a prosecution witness's credibility.

Supreme Court of California, June 18, 2009
People v. Butler, No. S055501
Defendant's capital murder conviction is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that joining Defendant's case with an unrelated jailhouse murder charge against Defendant would create unnecessary complexity; and 2) there was no merit in Defendant's complaint that the jury would be surprised if it learned about the jailhouse killing at the penalty phase.

Supreme Court of Delaware, June 15, 2009
Maddrey v. State, No. 533
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed, where the evidence was sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that the handguns at issue were available and accessible during the course of Defendant's continuing felonies.

California Appellate Districts, June 15, 2009
P. v. Meredith, No. C057232
Defendant's burglary conviction is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's requirement that Defendant wear jail clothing was harmless error; and 2) the burglary instruction given by the trial court did not prevent the jury from grasping Defendant's theory of defense.

California Appellate Districts, June 16, 2009
P. v. Dillon, No. A117853
Defendants' sexual assault convictions are affirmed where: 1) the challenged jury instruction properly specified the required elements of the assault offense; and 2) a Mayberry instruction is not required in every case in which a defendant charged with a sexual offense offers consent as a defense.

California Appellate Districts, June 16, 2009
People v. Cortes, No. B206770
Defendant's murder conviction is affirmed where substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Defendant's gang met the definition of a "criminal street gang" set forth in Cal. Penal Code section 186.22(f), because murder was a "primary activity" of the gang.

California Appellate Districts, June 16, 2009
P. v. Mirenda, No. D053261
The dismissal of the attempted murder indictment against Defendant is affirmed, where 26 years passed between the time the criminal charges were filed and the time when the prosecution actually started, despite Defendant's 1982 arrest, and thus Defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial.

California Appellate Districts, June 18, 2009
P. v. Shetty, No. B205061
Defendant's home equity sales fraud conviction is affirmed where the warrant issued for Defendant's arrest was timely, as the applicable statute of limitations was four years because the Civil Code section 1695.8 violation at issue was an offense involving fraud.

California Appellate Districts, June 18, 2009
P. v. M.B., No. F055289
The grant of the state's petition to make Defendant a ward of the state is affirmed where Welfare and Institutions Code section 7331 allows a juvenile court to commit a ward to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for a violation of probation: 1) if the offense for which the ward received the probation is a DJF-eligible offense; and 2) no petition alleging a more recent non-DJF-eligible offense has been sustained.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, June 17, 2009
Gonzales v. State, No. AP-75,540
Defendant's capital murder conviction is affirmed where there was ample independent corroborative evidence rendering it more probable than it would have been otherwise that the victim's death was caused by the criminal act of another, and thus Defendant was not convicted solely on the basis of his confession.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, June 17, 2009
Johnson v. State, No. PD-1187-07
Defendant's indecency with a child sentence is vacated where the trial court lacked discretion to impose jail time as a condition of community supervision immediately after he heard unsworn, un-crossexamined victim-allocution statements that they wanted Defendant to go to jail

A new publication from the American Bar Association

"Playing a hard-driven, unscrupulous defense attorney-turned-prosecutor in Shark was a real eye-opener for me as an actor and, more importantly, as a citizen."

-- James Woods
From the Foreword, Lawyers in Your Living Room

From Perry Mason and The Defenders in the 1960s to L.A. Law in the 80s, The Practice and Ally McBeal in the 90s, to Boston Legal, Shark and Law & Order today, the television industry has generated an endless stream of dramatic series involving law and lawyers. The way lawyers are perceived has depended on how they are portrayed on television series and in the media. A new guide, Lawyers in Your Living Room! Law on Television examines television series from the past and present, domestic and foreign, that are devoted to the law.

Written in an entertaining and relatable style, you'll enjoy the forewords by Sam Waterston (Law & Order) and James Woods (Shark), who share their experiences playing "real-life" lawyers and how their roles have shaped the way lawyers are perceived by the general public. Lawyers in Your Living Room! begins with an introduction and history of law on television. It then discusses the process of writing for television -- from courtroom to writer's room and how lawyers have played an important role in furnishing technical advice for TV. The book also discusses the media effects from television shows and legal ethics on TV.

Included are chapters on daytime television judge shows, including Judge Judy, and non-legal shows with important lawyer characters like The Simpsons, Seinfeld, or West Wing. The most popular television series, past and present, are also discussed, as well as popular shows abroad. All fans of legal television -- a group that includes almost everybody -- will enjoy this discussion of how TV shapes the views of lawyers and the law.

Product Details:
Price: $24.95

© June 2009
6 x 9 - Paperback
432 pages, paperback
ABA Product Code:
5010062

Do No Wrong: Ethics for Prosecutors and Defenders

By Peter A. Joy and Kevin C. McMunigal
Criminal law practice is a minefield of legal ethics issues for both the prosecution and defense. There are a myriad of ethical questions requiring not only an understanding of the relevant ethics rules, but also applicable constitutional and statutory law as well as rules of criminal procedure and evidence. This book puts these and other ethical questions on the "radar screens" of criminal practitioners and to provide both prosecution and defense with the analysis and authorities necessary to understand the issues and underlying policies.

Topics: Criminal Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Ethics Opinions, General Practice

The Criminal Lawyer's Job: A Survival Guide

By Amber L. St. Clair
You don't want to take a criminal case unless you have this book! It is an excellent resource to guide you along the journey of representing an individual who is alleged to have committed a crime. This book was written from the trenches, by a practitioner with over 100 trials under her belt and received "not guilty" verdicts in cases involving murder, rape, sex crimes, drugs and DUI, among others. This guide will give you valuable "how to" advice for taking the initial client meeting to picking a jury and trying the case. It is not intended to be a summary of the law, but rather a cheat sheet. It is a guide that most senior criminal defense attorneys likely wish they had when they tried their first few cases.

Topics: Criminal Law, General Practice

The Privilege of Silence: Fifth Amendment Protections Against Self-Incrimination

By Steven M. Salky
This book explains the contours of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in practice, providing a guide for both the civil litigator who may encounter it infrequently, as well as the criminal lawyer who seeks to advance his or her client's interests through the use of the Fifth Amendment. The Privilege of Silence organizes the relevant case law so that lawyers may advise and represent their clients by focusing on the practical aspects of Fifth Amendment assertions in all proceedings.

Topics: Criminal Law

Crime, Incorporated: Legal and Financial Implications of Corporate Misconduct

By Miriam F. Weismann
Today, whether prosecuting or defending, the approach to understanding organizational crime has become more difficult because of the increased multi-organizational character of corporate crime. Crime, Incorporated: Legal and Financial Implications of Corporate Misconduct, provides a complete re-examination of how traditional legal rules and their application given how corporate crime has changed in the last decade.

Topics: Criminal Law, Evidence, Litigation


Criminal Mental Health and Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony: A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges and Criminal Justice Professionals

By John W. Parry J.D.
Criminal Mental Health and Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony examines two interrelated aspects of criminal law - mental health and disability discrimination -- from the points of view of lawyers, judges and other professionals within the criminal justice system. The manual builds on established resources within the ABA, including the Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, Mental Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony and Disability Discrimination Law, Evidence and Testimony. It synthesizes the best and most recent information at the ABA on mental health and discrimination law that specifically pertains to criminal justice matters. It also references the ABA's Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards.

Topics: Criminal Law, Disability Law, Litigation

For more information go to:
www.ababooks.org