Court Decisions

February 8, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure 34

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

U.S. Supreme Court, January 25, 2010 Hemi Group, LLC v. City of N.Y., No. 08–969 In an action by New York City against an online cigarette seller under the civil enforcement provision of RICO, alleging that defendant’s failure to file Jenkins Act reports with New York State constituted mail and wire fraud, the court of appeals’ judgment reversing the dismissal of the complaint is reversed where plaintiff failed to satisfy RICO’s proximate cause requirement because defendant’s obligation was to file Jenkins Act reports with the state, not the city, and the city’s harm of lost tax revenue was directly caused by cigarette customers, not defendant.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 25, 2010 US v. Alfonso-Reyes, No. 06-1484
Convictions of defendants for defrauding the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of emergency loans and incentives to qualified farmers following the damage inflicted on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by a hurricane is affirmed where: 1) evidence is sufficient to support defendants’ convictions; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on sentencing enhancements; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in its pre-trial disqualification of a defendant’s attorney; 4) district court’s imposition of a 27-month sentence defendant is not unreasonable; and 5) district court did not err in awarding a four-point leadership role enhancement on the other defendant.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, January 25, 2010 Gray v. Brady, No. 08-2548 District court’s denial of defendant’s request for habeas relief, convicted of distributing cocaine and for doing so in a public park, is affirmed where: 1) defendant’s arguments that the trial court mistakenly believed that defendant, because he is not Hispanic, could not object to the exclusion of an Hispanic juror is without merit; 2) defendant’s argument that the state courts wrongly ignored the evidence of discriminatory animus toward the African-American jurors in finding no discriminatory animus against the Hispanic juror is without merit; and 3) defendant’s argument that the state courts erred in evaluating the challenges to the Hispanic juror and the African-American jurors separately, as opposed to challenges directed at “minority jurors” as a class is without merit, as defendant has provided no evidence or authority for the proposition that “minorities” constitute a cognizable group for Batson purposes.
Continue reading

January 26, 2010

U.S. Supreme Court Update: McDaniel v. Brown

by David Badertscher

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a defendant convicted of the rape of a 9-year-old girl after a night of heavy drinking.

The Supreme Court said in a per curiam opinion that overstated estimates of a DNA match at trial did not warrant reversal of a conviction when there is still “convincing evidence of guilt.”

January 26, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: U.S. Supreme Court. 01/26/2010

by David Badertscher

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

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS, PER CURIAM McDaniel v. Brown, No. 08-559 In habeas proceedings arising from a rape conviction, a circuit court of appeals’ order affirming the grant of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed and remanded where: 1) the court of appeals’ analysis failed to preserve the factfinder’s role as weigher of the evidence by reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and it erred in finding a state court’s resolution of petitioner’s claim to be objectively unreasonable; and 2) petitioner forfeited his claim that a prosecution expert incorrectly described the statistical implications of certain DNA evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS, SENTENCING Smith v. Spisak, No. 08–724 In capital habeas proceedings, a grant of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where a state court’s rejection of claimed errors regarding jury instructions and verdict forms, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel, was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as: 1) the jury instructions and forms in the penalty phase made clear that, to recommend a death sentence, the jury had to find unanimously that each of the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating circumstances, but they did not say that the jury had to determine the existence of each individual mitigating factor unanimously; and 2) even assuming that defense counsel’s closing argument was inadequate in the respects claimed by petitioner, there was no reasonable probability that a better closing argument without such defects would have made a significant difference.

January 26, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure 33

by David Badertscher

January 18, 2010 – January 1, 2010

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

Supreme Court, January 19, 2010 Wellons v. Hall, No. 09–5731 In a capital habeas matter, the petition for certiorari is granted and the court of appeals’ order is vacated and remanded where the court of appeals incorrectly held that the habeas petition, which claimed that petitioner was denied discovery into the issue of whether there had been improper communications between the judge and jury, was procedurally barred based on an insufficient record, contrary to Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. ___ (2009).

January 26, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: Constitutional Law 30

by David Badertscher

January 18, 2010 – January 1, 2010

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

U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2010 Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08–205 The Court rules that the government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. Specifically, in an action brought by a nonprofit corporation, the makers of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that was an “electioneering communication” or for speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, a denial of a preliminary injunction for plaintiff is reversed in part where Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (2007), that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sect! ion 203’s extension of section 441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. However, the order is affirmed in part where BCRA sections 201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for the documentary and to the movie itself because disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they imposed no ceiling on campaign-related activities, or prevented anyone from speaking. .

January 12, 2010

U.S. Supreme Courrt McDaniel v. Brown

by David Badertscher

January 11, 2010 No. 08-809.

The defendant, Troy Brown, had alleged on appeal that the state mischaracterized the probability that his DNA matched that of someone in the general population. He also claimed that a prosecution expert had misstated the chances of a DNA match between himself and his two brothers. All three lived near the victim.

“DNA evidence remains powerful inculpatory evidence even though the state concedes [its expert] overstated its probative value,” the Supreme Court wrote in McDaniel v. Brown.

January 6, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure 32

by David Badertscher

December-28, 2009 – January 1, 2010
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, December 28, 2009 US v. Dyer, No. 08-1343 Sentence on a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly interpreted the trafficking cross-reference under U.S.S.G. section 2G2.4(c)(2) to include situations in which a defendant intended to exchange child pornography without any commercial purpose; 2) defendant’s argument that the government must necessarily show the defendant actively and subjectively desired that others would get images of child pornography from him and that ordinary general intent does not suffice is rejected; 3) district court did not err in concluding that defendant’s online conduct showed an “intent to traffic” under section 2G2.4(c)(2); and 4) defendant’s argument that agent’s testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights because the grand jury testimony was never part of the record and because he had no chance to challenge that testimony during the sentencing hearing is rejected as without merit.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2009 US v. MacPherson, No. 08-1829 Defendant’s drug distribution sentence following a guilty plea is affirmed where: 1) the agreement and the plea colloquy put the defendant on notice that the Pimentel drug quantity estimate was not binding on the prosecutor and that if the estimate was wrong, the plea could not be withdrawn; and 2) there was no authority that prevented a sentencing judge from using facts of the offense conduct both to determine the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and to select a sentence within that range.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2009 Smith v. Smith, No. 08-7139 In an inmate’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a prison nurse claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the inmate made out a claim for a deliberate indifference and the district court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment; and 2) because the district court premised both the grant of the motion to dismiss and qualified immunity on its finding that plaintiff failed to allege deliberate indifference in his complaint, the immunity analysis was prematurely concluded on the erroneous basis that plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to indicate defendant had deliberate indifference to his medical need.
Continue reading

January 6, 2010

Findlaw Case Summaries: Constitutional Law 29

by David Badertscher

December-28, 2009 – January 1, 2010
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2009 Wilner v. Nat’l. Sec. Agency, No. 08-4726 In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action filed by attorneys for Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking information regarding whether the government intercepted plaintiffs’ communications relating to the representation of their detainee clients, an order upholding the National Security Agency’s (NSA) and Department of Justice’s responses neither confirming nor denying the existence of such records is affirmed where: 1) a Glomar response was available to agencies as a valid response to FOIA requests; 2) an agency may issue a Glomar response to FOIA requests seeking information obtained pursuant to a publicly acknowledged intelligence program, at least when the existence of such information has not already been publicly disclosed; 3) the NSA properly invoked the Glomar doctrine in response to plaintiffs’ request for information pursuant to FOIA Exemption 3; 4) the government’s affidavits sufficiently alleged the necessity of a Glomar response in this case, making it unnecessary ! for the court to review or to require the district court to review ex parte and in camera any classified affidavits that the NSA might proffer in support of its Glomar response; and 5) there was no evidence in the record that the NSA invoked Glomar for the purpose of concealing activities that violated the Constitution or were otherwise illegal.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2009 Smith v. Smith, No. 08-7139 In an inmate’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a prison nurse claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the inmate made out a claim for a deliberate indifference and the district court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment; and 2) because the district court premised both the grant of the motion to dismiss and qualified immunity on its finding that plaintiff failed to allege deliberate indifference in his complaint, the immunity analysis was prematurely concluded on the erroneous basis that plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to indicate defendant had deliberate indifference to his medical need.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2009 Hamblen v. US, No. 09-5025 District court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion to vacate a sentence for possession of machine guns and unregistered firearms by defendant, a volunteer with the Tennessee State Guard who had built nine machine guns in response to the events of September 11, is affirmed as the Second Amendment does not confer an unrestricted individual right to keep and bear machine guns.
Continue reading

December 21, 2009

Findlaw Case Summaries: Criminal Law and Procedure 31

by David Badertscher

December-14-18, 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, December 14, 2009 US v. Giggy, No. 09-1542 In a case involving the sentence of a defendant for maliciously destroying by fire a building with two prior convictions for non-dwelling burglary, the government’s appeal of defendant’s sentence requesting that the Sentencing Commission be asked to clarify how courts ought to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to non-dwelling burglary is dismissed because there is no specification of error by the government directed to the district court’s reasoning or findings, and the government’s alternative request that the court consult the Commission is unpromising.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 16, 2009 US v. Zapata, No. 08-1554 A sentence of the statutory maximum imposed following defendant’s conviction for unlawful use of a communication facility in connection with a drug trafficking offense is affirmed where: 1) the sentence fell within constitutional limits as it did not exceed the statutory maximum set by Congress; 2) district court’s drug quantity estimate represents a reasonable view of the record and is therefore not clearly erroneous; and 3) defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 17, 2009 Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636 In plaintiffs’ civil rights action brought following the death of their son against a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections that serves as both a prison and a mental hospital, its superintendent, and others, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in defendant’s place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing a certain practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient’s rights; 2) commissioner is also entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in his position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the hospital’s recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations; and 3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment Continue reading

December 21, 2009

Findlaw Case Summaries: Constitutional Law 28

by David Badertscher

December-14-18, 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, December 17, 2009 Mosher v. Nelson, No. 09-1636 In plaintiffs’ civil rights action brought following the death of their son against a facility operated by the Massachusetts Department of Corrections that serves as both a prison and a mental hospital, its superintendent, and others, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendant-superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in defendant’s place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing a certain practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient’s rights; 2) commissioner is also entitled to qualified immunity as a reasonable official in his position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the hospital’s recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations; and 3) the district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. .

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 16, 2009 US v. Hester, No. 08-4665 Defendant’s conviction for traveling in interstate commerce and failing to register or update his sex offender registration in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) is affirmed where the fact that defendant had no actual notice of SORNA was not sufficient to render his prosecution pursuant to that statute a violation of his due process rights.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 18, 2009 Turkmen v. Ashcroft, No. 06-3745 In an action claiming abuse, mistreatment, and detention of Arab and Muslim aliens who were held on immigration violations in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, an order partially dismissing the complaint is affirmed in part where there was no clearly established equal protection right to be free of selective enforcement of immigration laws based on national origin, race, or religion at the time of plaintiffs’ detentions. However, the order is vacated in part where defendant-officials were entitled to qualified immunity because a law enforcement official’s actual motivation for the Fourth Amendment seizure of a person was constitutionally irrelevant if the seizure was supported by probable cause.
Continue reading