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, May 07, 2008
US v. Genao-Sanchez, No. 05-1402
Sentence for drug conspiracy, conspiring to use a firearm in furtherance of a drug conspiracy, and aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court's failure to convene a new sentencing hearing deprived defendant the opportunity to argue his position both as to matters of fact relevant to sentencing, and as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed; and 2) thus, the error was prejudicial.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 07, 2008
US v. Williams, No. 07-1354
The interstate transport of a minor for prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2423(a) constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the career offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Eberhard, No. 05-3431, 05-5248, 06-2913
Conviction, sentence, and restitution ordered against defendant for conspiracy, investment advisor fraud, mail and wire fraud, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) application of newly-enacted 18 U.S.C. section 3771(a) was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Ex Post Facto and Due Process clauses; 2) the record did not support a four-level role enhancement under the sentencing guidelines; and 3) his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of a probation office's recommended terms.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
US v. Iodice, No. 06-2680
Defendant's conviction of various counts related to three arsons and the robbery of a money courier are affirmed over his claims that: 1) the federal arson statute is unconstitutional as applied to the arson of a closed diner; 2) the district court erred in crediting a special agent's account of the arrest; and 3) he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. (Amended Opinion)
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. Desinor, No. 05-4500, 05-5907, 06-2256
In a prosecution of multiple defendants for various drug-related offenses, their convictions are affirmed where: 1) defendants were not entitled to a jury charge on self-defense; 2) there was no error in a jury charge regarding the nexus between the drug conspiracy and the murder of a rival gang member; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of that nexus beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the sentence of one co-defendant is partially vacated and remanded where the district court imposed a consecutive sentence on that defendant for discharging a firearm without making the requisite finding of discharge.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
Thompson v. Choinski, No. 04-5079
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 09, 2008
US v. Regalado, No. 05-5739
Sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base is remanded where: 1) in light of the holding in Kimbrough, it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed a non-Guidelines sentence had it been aware of the Guidelines' advisory nature, and that it had the discretion to deviate from the Guidelines; and 2) the absence of that information precluded a review for plain error.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 09, 2008
US v. Martinez, No. 06-5502
In a sentencing proceeding wherein the district court applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of proof to the facts supporting the enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed was reasonable; and 3) the doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not apply to invalidate the sentence imposed.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
U.S. v. Tate, No. 07-4026
Conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony is vacated and the case remanded where the officer who wrote an affidavit used in support of a search warrant deliberately omitted facts about the location of the trash that the officer searched and upon which he based his finding of probable cause.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
U.S. v. Armstead, No. 05-5157
Convictions for felony willful copyright infringement for private financial gain are affirmed over allegations that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that DVDs sold had an aggregate value of more than $2,500 in "retail value" as used in section 2319(b)(1).
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
U.S. v. Mir, No. 05-4985, 05-4989
Convictions for immigration fraud are affirmed over defendant's principal claim that that conversations two witnesses initiated with him at the government's behest violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because those conversations occurred after defendant had been indicted on the immigration fraud counts.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
U.S. v. Brooks, No. 05-4602, 05-4603, 05-4604, 05-4605, 05-4616
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
U.S. v. Hazlewood, No. 07-50827
A conviction for assault is affirmed where the federal magistrate did not lack jurisdiction over misdemeanor assault simply because the charge lacked the words "simple assault." Indictments only charge misdemeanor assaults under 18 U.S.C. section 111(a) when they do not describe any physical contact.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 07, 2008
In Re: Dean, No. 08-20125
Petition for writ of mandamus brought by twelve victims in a related criminal proceeding, challenging under the Crimes Victims Rights Act (CVRA) a decision denying their request that the district court reject a plea agreement, is denied where the court finds that a writ of mandamus would not be appropriate under the circumstances since the court allowed the victims substantial and meaningful participation in a hearing after a tentative plea agreement was reached. The circuit court does note that it was contrary to the CVRA for the district court to permit and employ an ex parte proceeding that did not allow the victims to participate by conferring in advance of the plea agreement.
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. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Soto-Pierda, No. 07-1399, 07-1778
In a prosecution for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, one defendant's sentence is affirmed where defendant failed to call into question the accuracy of a pre-sentence report containing a probation officer's estimated cocaine quantity, on which the court relied to select a base offense level. Another defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded where there was a lack of evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that he was responsible for 14 to 15 kilograms of crack.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
U.S. v. Orsburn, No. 07-2584, 07-2585
Convictions for mail fraud are affirmed, but the sentences vacated and the case remanded for re-sentencing where the trial court applied the wrong Guidelines sentence when it concluded that embezzling money from the government fell under section 2C1.1 of the Guidelines which covers frauds that include bribery.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Thomas, No. 06-2452
Following a remand for reconsideration in light of Kimbrough, conviction for drug-related offenses is affirmed but the sentence is reversed and remanded where: 1) evidence gained from a Terry stop was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine; 2) the district court did not clearly err in imposing a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on defendant's perjury at a suppression hearing; but 3) it was unclear from the sentencing record whether the district court would have granted defendant's request for a downward variance if the district court had known it could do so under Kimbrough.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Santana, No. 07-1172
In a prosecution for drug-related offenses, grant of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal is reversed and jury verdict reinstated where, viewing the evidence most favorably to the verdict, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find defendant guilty of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 07, 2008
US v. Clay, No. 07-3050
Sentence for drug-related offense is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a downward variance requested by defendant; and 2) the sentence imposed was not unreasonable.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. Webster, No. 07-1274
Sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) based on defendant's prior convictions of violent felonies is reversed and remanded where, in light of Begay v. US, 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), defendant's prior felony convictions for "operating while intoxicated" (OWI) must not be considered in applying the ACCA.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
Boston v. Weber, No. 07-2222
Dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely based on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) statute of limitations is affirmed where: 1) the period between the date the judgment became final and the filing date of a state habeas application was included in the AEDPA one-year limitation period; and 2) the state did not waive the AEDPA statute of limitations defense.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. McGuire, No. 08-1793
Denial of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where defendant was subjected to a minimum mandatory sentence, and thus was ineligible for a sentence reduction.
U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. Thomas, No. 08-1829
Denial of defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the U.S.S.G. is affirmed where defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction as a career offender.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
Brown v. Farwell, No. 07-15592
Grant of a petition for habeas relief in a sexual assault case is affirmed on due process grounds where: 1) had the state's DNA expert's unreliable and misleading testimony on the DNA evidence been excluded, there would have been insufficient evidence to convict petitioner on each essential element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; and 2) the Nevada Supreme Court's decision was both "contrary to" and an "unreasonable application of" established U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
Torres v. City of Madera, No. 05-16762
In a civil rights action arising in circumstances in which defendant-officer, intending to deploy a Taser device holstered near her firearm, instead drew and fired her service weapon, killing an individual, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, decedent was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and 2) defendant-officer's mistake is governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
In re: Slatkin, No. 06-56334
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
US v. Chapman, No. 06-10316, 06-10610
Dismissal of an indictment against defendants after the prosecution admitted that it had failed to meet its obligations to disclose over 650 pages of documents to the defense is affirmed where: 1) the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the government's appeal under the circumstances; but 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment as the government egregiously failed to meet its constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio, and committed flagrant prosecutorial misconduct justifying dismissal; and 3) further, there was no abuse of discretion in finding that a retrial would substantially prejudice defendants.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. Pete, No. 06-10390
A conviction for second degree murder on an Indian reservation, felony murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, is affirmed where: 1) the entire period from the time defendant filed his "Motion to Recall the Mandate" on December 23, 2004, up until the Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition on June 20, 2005, was excludable; and 2) thus, the Speedy Trial Act (STA) was not violated and a motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 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. (Superseding opinion)
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
Mendez-Mendez v. Mukasey, No. 06-70851
Petition for review of a dismissal of Mexican native's appeal from an IJ's order of removal is denied where: 1) because the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for petitioner's bribery offense was fifteen years, the petty offense exception to inadmissibility does not apply; and 2) the IJ did not violate his due process right to a full and fair hearing by unilaterally advancing the hearing date. The plain language of 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) indicates that the "maximum penalty possible" refers to the statutory maximum, not the maximum guideline sentence to which an alien was exposed.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
U.S. v. Thompson, No. 07-5103
A conviction for armed bank robbery and related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act since there was no grand jury in session when time to file the indictment would have otherwise expired; 2) the owner of the house where defendant was residing had authority to consent to a voluntary search of the premises, and evidence obtained in the search was valid; 3) an in-court identification procedure was not unconstitutionally suggestive when the defendant was ordered to wear sunglasses and a black hood in front of the jury.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
U.S. v. Munoz-Nava, No. 06-2247, 06-2254
In a prosecution for a drug-related offense, defendant's below-Guidelines sentence and a denial of his motion to suppress evidence are affirmed where: 1) probable cause supported defendant's detention; and 2) the government's challenges to the reasonableness of the sentence and a downward variance failed in light of the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review articulated in Gall and Kimbrough.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
House v. Bravo, No. 05-2129
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction for driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, and related offenses, denial of the habeas petition is affirmed over challenges alleging that: 1) a transfer of venue improperly eliminated all Native American members from the venire; 2) court misapplied federal law by failing to conduct voir dire before presuming that an entire county venire was tainted by pretrial publicity, and transferring venue; 3) the state's discriminatory use of a New Mexico venue transfer statute constituted a structural error that violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights; 4) the state court erred in its sentencing decision; and 5) the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated the defendant's right to due process.
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 07, 2008
U.S. v. Reeves, No. 07-8028
In a prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, denial of a motion to suppress evidence is reversed where: 1) defendant was seized inside his motel room without a warrant in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980); and 2) the government did not demonstrate that defendant's subsequent consents to search were not tainted by the unlawful seizure.
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. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Edwards, No. 06-11643
In a prosecution for wire fraud and related crimes, defendant's conviction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made after he rested his defense; 2) he was denied a fair trial and the ability to confront witnesses when the district court permitted several prosecution witnesses to remain in the courtroom and listen to testimony before they took the witness stand; 3) the court erred in denying a motion to suppress certain documents submitted to the SEC during its investigation of a sale and lease-back program; and 4) the court's jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. However, defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing where, although defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering, he only received one sentence.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 05, 2008
US v. Hunt, No. 06-16641
Conviction and sentence for knowingly making a false entry into a police incident report with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence an FBI investigation is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) application of 18 U.S.C. section 1519 deprived him of due process because it did not place him on fair notice that his behavior was proscribed; 2) the evidence was insufficient to convict him under section 1519 because it showed that he simply made a misstatement in his report and did not knowingly make a false statement with the intent to hamper federal investigation; and 3) his sentence was unreasonable.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
Hadley v. Gutierrez, No. 06-12605
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 08, 2008
US v. Harris, No. 07-13473
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
US v. Brodie, No. 05-3131
A conviction and sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy to obtain mortgage loans using false statements is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the district court's sustaining an objection to defense counsel's closing argument impugning a witness' veracity from facts not in the record; 2) the prosecution's failure to disclose possible impeachment evidence until seven days after trial; 3) improper application of a four-level sentencing enhancement applying to organizers or leaders of criminal activity involving five or more participants; 4) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a failure to request a downward departure based on defendant's immigration status; 5) insufficient evidence; 6) counsel's failure to move for a judgment acquittal; 7) qualification of one of the witnesses as an expert; 8) violations of the Speedy Trial Act; 9) improper venue; 10) admission of documentary evidence by agreement of the parties without the opportunity for defenda! nt to cross-examine witnesses; 11) a forfeiture order; and 12) other arguments which were abandoned on appeal because they amounted to conclusionary statements.
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 09, 2008
U.S. v. Day, No. 06-3063, 06-3076
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal f! orfeiture context.
Supreme Court of California, May 05, 2008
People v. Williams, No. S052520
On automatic appeal from a death sentence for first degree murder, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) admission of preliminary hearing testimony of a prosecution witness that exercised his privilege against self-incrimination; 2) introduction of preliminary hearing testimony of a witness that was cross-examined by counsel representing co-defendant; 3) a failure to inform the jury that a witness had exercised his privilege against self-incrimination; 4) refusal of defendant's request to ask leading questions of his original prosecutor; 5) admission of evidence of bias against a defense witness; 6) a failure to instruct the jury that one of the individuals involved in the crime was an accomplice by law; 7) an instruction to the jury telling them to view the defendant's confession with caution; 8) a jury instruction pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.01 regarding sufficiency of circumstantial evidence; 9) limiting a defense witness' opinion whether defendant shou! ld be executed; 10) the lack of a jury instruction at the penalty phase which would let jurors know that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole would mean defendant never would be released from prison; 11) constitutional challenges to the death penalty law; and 12) cumulative error. .
Supreme Court of California, May 05, 2008
In re Miranda, No. S058528, S060781
Petition for habeas corpus relief in a murder case is granted and the death sentence is vacated, and petitioner is allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, where the prosecution failed to timely disclose several items of evidence that tended to rebut a key prosecution penalty phase witness, and that contradicted the prosecutor's suggestion in his penalty phase closing argument that evidence indicating it was really another individual who killed a victim "didn't exist."
Supreme Court of California, May 08, 2008
People v. Watson, No. S024471
In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the judgment is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the use of peremptory challenges in an allegedly racially discriminatory manner to excuse nine African-American prospective jurors; 2) the admissibility of photographs of the crime scene and autopsy; 3) the impeachment of a defense witness with the fact that he was serving time in a federal prison; 4) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 8.65 regarding the doctrine of transferred intent; 5) the trial court instructing the jury with CALJIC No. 2.03 regarding willfully false or deliberately misleading statements made at trial; 6) exclusion of testimony of defendant's penalty phase investigator; 7) the removal of a juror due to potential juror bias; 8) the rejection of three penalty phase instructions; 9) whether the court had a duty to instruct the jury that a sentence of life without possibility of parole meant that defendant would never be considered fo! r parole; 10) CALJIC No. 8.85 and CALJIC 8.88 jury instructions; 11) the constitutionality of the death penalty; 12) international law; and 13) cumulative error.
New York Court of Appeals, May 06, 2008
People v. Umali, No. 66
Conviction for manslaughter in the first degree is affirmed where: 1) precluding defendant from speaking to counsel about his testimony during a trial recess did not deprive his right to counsel, as the ban on attorney-client communication was rescinded promptly after defendant's protest; 2) the jury charge as a whole accurately stated that the government had to disprove the justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) defendant's remaining contentions were either unpreserved, meritless, or harmless.
Supreme Court of Florida, May 08, 2008
St. Val v. State of Florida, No. SC07-1402
Upon further consideration the Supreme Court of Florida determines that it should exercise its discretion to discharge jurisdiction in this case, and the review proceeding is dismissed.
Supreme Court of Florida, May 08, 2008
State of Florida v. Moninger, No. SC07-510
Upon further consideration the Supreme Court of Florida determines that jurisdiction was improvidently granted, and the review proceeding is dismissed.
Supreme Court of Florida, May 08, 2008
Owen v. State of Florida, No. SC06-2104, SC07-650
Denial of defendant's motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death, as well as a petition for habeas relief, are affirmed and denied, respectively, over claims of error regarding: 1) whether the trial court erred in summarily denying several ineffective assistance of counsel claims and claims based upon Brady/Giglio; 2) ineffective assistance of counsel during voir dire, the penalty phase, and the guilt phase; 3) cumulative error; 4) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and 5) resentencing on defendant's noncapital convictions.
Supreme Court of Delaware, May 06, 2008
State of Delaware v. Meades, No. 271, 2007
Grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police detained him without a reasonable articulable suspicion that he committed, was committing, or was about to commit, a crime; and 2) the government failed to properly raise arguments that the defendant was not detained and that the police do not need to have any suspicion of criminal activity when they simply approach a person and ask some questions.
Supreme Court of Delaware, May 06, 2008
State of Delaware v. Sturgis, No. 66, 2008
A final judgment and modified sentencing order which reduced defendant's minimum mandatory Level V sentence for attempted first-degree murder is reversed where defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of his statutorily mandated minimum Level V sentence could not be considered by the Superior Court, as it did not comport with the two conditions precedent required by Del. Code ann. Tit. 11, sections 4217(b) and 4217(f).
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 06, 2008
People v. Bhakta, No. B190437
In an action involving claims of prostitution nuisance at a motel, a judgment permanently enjoining defendants from facilitating or encouraging prostitution, or providing a place where prostitution can occur on the premises pursuant to the "Red Light Abatement Law" and unfair competition law, as well as an award of fees and costs to the government, are affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in proceeding with a bench trial, as defendants were not entitled to a jury trial; and 2) the court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.
California Appellate Districts, May 06, 2008
People v. Gemmill, No. C055464
Police officers may conduct a search of a home that is less intrusive than the physical entry of the home when they have an objectively reasonable basis to suspect someone inside might be seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. .
California Appellate Districts, May 08, 2008
People v. Varghese, No. D048456
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.
