Articles Posted in Criminal Law and Justice

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drug quantity estimate was not binding on the prosecutor and that if the estimate was wrong, the plea could not be withdrawn; and 2) there was no authority that prevented a sentencing judge from using facts of the offense conduct both to determine the applicable Sentencing Guidelines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

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-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. Supreme Court, December 07, 2009 Michigan v. Fisher, No. 09–91 In an assault prosecution, grant of petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence that he pointed a rifle at an officer when he entered his house is reversed where the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because he was responding to a report of a disturbance and encountered a tumultuous situation in the house, which justified a warrantless search under the emergency aid exception.

U.S. Supreme Court, December 08, 2009 Beard v. Kindler, No. 08–992 In a capital habeas matter involving whether Pennsylvania’s fugitive forfeiture rule provided an adequate basis to bar federal habeas review of petitioner’s claims, grant of his habeas petition is vacated and remanded where a state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the adequate state ground doctrine (and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas review) because the state rule was discretionary rather than mandatory. ..

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 07, 2009 US v. Leon-Quinones, No. 07-1395 Defendant’s conviction for robbing two banks and for carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that defendant used a real firearm during the robbery of one of the banks; 2) the district court committed no clear or obvious error in allowing a witness to identify defendant; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask witnesses leading questions when they returned to the stand to identify defendant.
Continue reading

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

Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher

United States Supreme Court No. 09-91

November 30-December-4, 2009.

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

U.S. Supreme Court, November 30, 2009 Porter v. McCollum, No. 08–10537 In capital habeas proceedings, circuit court’s order reversing a district court’s grant of a habeas petition is reversed where it was objectively unreasonable for a state court to conclude that there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that petitioner’s counsel neither uncovered nor presented, including evidence of petitioner’s mental health or mental impairment, his family background, or his military service.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 01, 2009 US v. Willings, No. 09-1334 In a prosecution for robbery of a federal bank through the use of a dangerous weapon, district court’s imposition of a sentence designating defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1(a) is affirmed as escape from secure custody is a crime of violence within the purview of the career offender guideline.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 03, 2009 US v. Hersom, No. 07-2401 Defendant’s conviction for maliciously destroying by fire a building owned by an institution receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 844(f) is affirmed where: 1) in general, the statute should be limited to arson of property acquired, renovated, or leased using federal financial assistance; 2) section 844(f) is constitutional and it applies to defendant’s conduct in this case; but 3) defendant’s sentence is vacated and remanded in light of US v. Giggey to determine whether defendant’s second career offender predicate is a crime of violence.
Continue reading