To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
May 11-15, 2009.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 11, 2009 Pina v. Maloney , No. 07-1267
Denial of petition for habeas relief is affirmed where although plaintiff did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the claim still fails on the merits as counsel’s decision to pursue a defense of misidentification rather than an alibi defense was a reasonable, tactical decision. ..
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 12, 2009 US v. Del Valle , No. 08-1234
District court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial is affirmed where: 1) the defendant did not meet his burden of proving that the newly discovered evidence met the requirements for warranting a new trial; and 2) the court properly rejected defendant’s claim that the government violated Brady by failing to disclose evidence, as defendant cannot show a reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 15, 2009 US v. Melendez-Rivas, No. 07-1962 Conviction for conspiracy and aiding and abetting a motor vehicle hijacking with intent to cause death is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court properly denied defendant’s motion for aquittal as the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction; and 2) the district court’s intervention in questioning a defense witness went beyond the appropriate limits and elicited inadmissible, prejudicial testimony that interfered with defendant’s fair trial rights
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2009 Brisco v. Ercole , No. 05-4339 Grant of petition for habeas relief is reversed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish that the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the challenged showup procedure was not unnecessarily suggestive; and 2) the showup identification was independently reliable. .
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2009 US v. Tureseo, No. 07-2933 Conviction and sentence for reentering the U.S. after deportation, making a false claim of U.S. citizenship, and aggravated identity theft is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the district court erred when it instructed the jury in defendant’s absence, but the error did not cause prejudice and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; but 2) the court made a constitutional error that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when it omitted an essential element of the offense in its jury instruction on the aggravated identity theft charge Continue reading