Articles Posted in Criminal Law and Justice

September 28 – October 2, 2009.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October 01, 2009 US v. Torres-Oliveras, No. 07-2720
Sentence and conviction of defendant for drug-related crimes is affirmed where: 1) defendant’s appeal waiver is valid, and thus, direct appeal of his conviction and sentence is not permitted under the terms of the waiver to which he assented; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s pro se motion for modification of his term of imprisonment as he stipulated to possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, and the revised guideline regarding crack cocaine possession was simply not applicable; and 3) defendant’s Kimbrough claim is rejected.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Dunlap v. Burge, No. 07-0592 In a robbery prosecution, grant of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where the district court erred in failing to accord the deference required by 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) to the state court’s evaluation of the pretrial identification procedures used by the police.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Jova v. Smith, No. 08-2816 In an action by prisoners claiming that defendant prison personnel infringed their right to practice their religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the restrictions imposed on plaintiffs’ practice were justified by powerful security and administrative interests, but reversed in part where defendants did not demonstrate that the religious/meatless alternative menu was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling administrative interests.
Continue reading

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw:

September 30 – October 2, 2009.

View FindLaw’s new Case Summary Blog for the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
CIVIL PROCEDURE, CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE Roberts v. Babkiewicz, No. 08-3858 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution, dismissal of the action is reversed where it was unclear that the criminal charge against plaintiff that the state dropped was necessarily related to or arose from the same circumstances as the criminal offense to which plaintiff pleaded guilty, and thus it was unclear under Connecticut law whether the dismissal of the underlying criminal offense resulted in a “favorable termination.” ..

ERISA, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Ladouceur v. Credit Lyonnais, No. 07-4040 In an ERISA action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty based on changes to an employee benefit plan, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where oral promises cannot vary the terms of a written ERISA plan.

.
Continue reading

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

October 2,2009
1. People v Ferrer, 1096, 2459/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6779; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6611, October 1, 2009, Decided, October 1, 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 …
… appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), …

2. People v Garcia, 1088, 1093/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6772; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6612, October 1, 2009, Decided, October 1, 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 (Gregory Carro, J. …

3. People v Rivera, 1093, 314/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6776; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6615, October 1, 2009, Decided, October 1, 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 Stolz, J.), …

4. People v Leak, 1085, 6196/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6769; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6616, October 1, 2009, Decided, October 1, 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, …

5. People v Jameson, 1091, 6630/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 6774; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621, October 1, 2009, Decided, October 1, 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 (Daniel P. FitzGerald, …
Continue reading

September 7-11, 2009.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 11, 2009 US v. Bucci, No. 07-2376
Defendant’s sentence, a forfeiture order and convictions for drug trafficking and related crimes is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant discovery in support of his vindictive-prosecution claim; 2) a second superseding indictment was timely filed as defendant did not “engage” in a monetary transaction until the funds were deposited into his account; 3) defendant had no reasonable objective expectation of privacy in the front of his home; 4) officers had probable cause to believe there was evidence of criminal activity in defendant’s vehicle to conduct a search; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the government a rebuttal opening statement; 6) district court’s imposition of enhancement did not violate defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights where the court was aware of its discretion to impose a below-guideline sentence and adequately considered defendant’s argument for a below-guideline sentence; and 7) distri! ct court did not plainly err in instructing the jury that “proceeds” meant “gross proceeds” for forfeiture purposes.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 11, 2009 Simmons v. Beard , No. 05-9001 In habeas proceedings arising from defendant’s capital murder conviction, district court’s grant of habeas relief on the ground that the state prosecutors had withheld several pieces of material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady is affirmed where the cumulative effect of the multiple Brady violations was to undermine confidence in the verdict.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 11, 2009 Massey v. US, No. 09-1665 District court’s denial of pro se defendant’s petition for a writ of audita querela is affirmed as his claim is cognizable under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 and there is no gap to fill in the post-conviction remedies
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 08, 2009 Ruelas v. Wolfenbarger, No. 08-1571 In a murder prosecution, the district court’s grant of a habeas petition is reversed where, even assuming state courts unreasonably applied federal law in determining that petitioner’s guilty plea was not improper, the inquiry became whether the failure to consider manslaughter “had a substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the determination that he was guilty of second-degree murder, and it did not have such an effect.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 08, 2009 US v. Dyer, No. 08-5671 In a drug prosecution, a denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence is affirmed where: 1) an affidavit in support of the search warrant established the reliability of the police’s informant; and 2) there were sufficient indicia of reliability without substantial independent police corroboration.
Continue reading

August 24 – 28, 2009.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 24, 2009 US v. Padilla-Colon, No. 07-2372 Conviction of defendant for possession of drugs with intent to distribute is affirmed where, although defendant’s waiver of appeal was invalid, there was no error in the district court finding that defendant did not qualify for the safety valve provision of 18 U.S.C. section 3553(f), based on a reasoned assessment of the defendant’s credibility in light of the facts on record.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 24, 2009 Crawford v. Clarke, No. 08-2100 In an action brought by Muslim inmates in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging the Commissioner violated their right to freely exercise their religion, grant of an injunction in favor of inmates is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its decision in denying Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration as the Commissioner sought to introduce evidence that could have been introduced at trial but chose not to.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 26, 2009 US v. Calderon, No. 05-2650 District court’s sentence and conviction of defendants for conspiring to possess drugs with the intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) under the totality of the circumstances, the existence of common purpose, distribution of drugs, interdependence of various elements in the overall plan, and overlap among defendants, a reasonable jury could have convicted each of the defendants of the single conspiracy charge; 2) district court did not err in allowing a witness to testify as the defendant had not preserved a delayed disclosures claim; 3) court did abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a firearm as it was clearly a relevant evidence and Rule 403 balancing did not weigh in favor of exclusion; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that murder evidence was relevant, and even were the circuit court to conclude that the district court erred in admitting the evidence, the error would not be clear or obvious; 5) district court did not err in severing! defendant’s trial from his codefendants as he did not file a severance motion before trial; and 6) district court did not err in determining the drug quantity findings in sentencing the defendants under the sentencing Guidelines Continue reading