Criminal Law Library BlogApril 12-18, 2009
William S. Hein & Co., Inc. is pleased to offer special pricing on a selection of our newest and best selling titles during National Library Week!
Purchase ONE title and receive 10% off
Articles Posted in Criminal Law and Justice
New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County. April 13, 2009.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
April 13, 2009.
1. People v. Gagot, 277, 6919/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2724; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2591, April 9, 2009, Decided, April 9, 2009, Filed, 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.
Findlaw Case Summaries
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
April 6-10, 2009:
U.S. Supreme Court, April 06, 2009 Corley v. US, No. 07-10441 Defendant’s bank robbery conviction is vacated, where the District Court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession under McNabb v. US, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. US, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), based on the government’s delay in bringing him before a judge, where 18 U.S.C. section 3501 modified McNabb-Mallory but did not supplant it. …
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 09, 2009 US v. González-Castillo , No. 07-2134 Sentence for unlawfully entering the U.S. after being previously deported is reversed and remanded where a clear and obvious error occurred when the court based defendant’s sentence on unsupported factual assertions, such that the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights and impaired the fairness of defendant’s sentence. .
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, April 06, 2009 US v. Hertular, No. 07-1453 Conviction for drug and drug-related crimes is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded where: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s conviction for forcibly impeding or intimidating a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. sec. 111(a)(1) as the agents were not being threatened with immediate harm; 2) defendant’s sufficiency challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction was patently without merit; 3) there was no plain error in the district court’s jury instructions regarding the specific intent element of the obstruction of justice charge; and 4) although defendant’s sentence is vacated in light of the reversal of his sec. 111 conviction, there is still no merit to defendant’s procedural challenges to his sentence.
Continue reading
New York Appellate Criminal Cases Originating from the New York Supreme Court NY County – Lexis. April 9, 2009.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
April 9, 2009.
1. People v. Dunkley, 243, 4713/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2659; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2557, April 7, 2009, Decided, April 7, 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.
New York District Attorney Morgenthau Announces 118 Count Indictment of Profileration of Illicit Missle and Nuclear Technology to Government of Iran
Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today a 118-count indictment of a Chinese citizen and his company for charges relating to the misuse of Manhattan banks and the proliferation of illicit missile and nuclear technology to the Government of Iran. The Chinese company, known as LIMMT,
is a major supplier of banned weapons material to the Iranian military.
The defendants, LI FANG WEI (a/k/a KARL LEE, a/k/a PATRIC, a/k/a SUNNY BAI, a/k/a K. LEE a/k/a KL, a/k/a DAVID LI, a/k/a F.W. LI) and LIMMT ECONOMIC AND TRADE COMPANY, LTD., (a/k/a LIMMT (DALIAN FTZ)
U.S. Supreme Court Update
April 8, 2009
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
Corley v. United States No. 07-10441
Findlaw Case Summaries: Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 7
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
April 7, 2009.
CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM US v. Kopp , No. 07-2797 Conviction for intentionally inflicting on a person, because that person was a provider of reproductive health services, an injury resulting in death is affirmed where: 1) district court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence as untimely, and defendant provided no valid basis for a claim for relief from the Fed. R. Crim. P. rule 12(e) waiver; 2) court did not err when it granted government’s motion to introduce defendant’s statements in redacted form as the redacted portions had no bearing on the jury’s consideration; and 3) the court did not err in precluding defendant from asserting a justification defense and instructing the jury that it was not to consider a justification defense, as the evidence was insufficient to support that defense under any reasonable articulation. ..
Selected Forthcoming Books Related to Criminal Justice
Search limited to forthcoming hardcover books published in english:
Criminal Justice in China: A History
Author: Mühlhahn, Klaus Publisher: Harvard University Press ISBN or UPC: 0-674-03323-X (Active Record)
As Mexico Battles Cartels, The Army Becomes the Law
Posting prepared by Matthew Micka
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Mexican President Felipe Calderón is now deploying nearly 50% (45,000) of his nation’s combat ready troops to wage a war against his nation’s powerful drug traffickers, who supply an estimated 90% of the cocaine entering the United States.
U.S. Supreme Court Update: Harbison v. Bell, Warden
Harbison v. Bell, Warden
No. 07-8521
“In reversing a 6th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation. Following Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition. Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings. The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6th Circuit had affirmed.”