Articles Posted in Criminal Law and Justice

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

**The Government Domain: Tracking Congress 2.0

http://www.llrx.com/columns/govdomain42.htm

With the 111th Congress of the United States reconvening on September 8th, e-gov expert Peggy Garvin highlights new tools and sources that enhance and expand your ability to track and monitor the action.

In their September 8 article in Bloomberg News, Cary O’Reilly and Linda Sandler write that “[A]s the White House and Congress debate how to regulate financial crisis, judges have assumed the point position of punishing Wall Street for causing the worst recession since the 1930s.” O’Reilly and Sandler point out that while the executive and legislative branches of government continue to discuss the possibilities of implementing various reforms as a response to the financial crisis that began approximately a year ago, “judges are [actually] taking the first steps toward the same goal, punishing executives and issuing rulings with national impact.” In their article O’Reilly and Sandler go on to enumerate specific examples of how some judges have proceeded along this path.

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

The Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli authorities are trying to fight back against the violence that has become endemic in the country. Internal Security Minister Yizhak Aharonovich said violence has become “routine” despite the efforts of police. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he considers violence and bullying to be a sort of internal terrorism and that his government would follow a policy of “zero tolerance to violence, both verbal and physical”. Prime Minister Netanyahu presented a plan for change that includes harsher punishments, increased police presence on the streets and limiting alcohol sales..

Jerusalem Post

According to the Editors of The Crime Report, the movement to ban shackling pregnant prisoners is gaining momentum. On August 26, 2009, Governor David Paterson of New York signed a bill (now NY Chapter 411 2009) banning the practice for all but the most unruly inmates. What is happening in your state?

Only six states-California, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas and Vermont-have legislation regulating the use of restraints on pregnant women. Women detained in 44 states, the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisons lack such legislative protection. Some state departments of corrections did not provide details on what type of restraints may be utilized during labor, nor did they provide their policy.

(Research provided by Amnesty International and The Rebecca Project for Human Rights.)

The 2009 Fall Conference Washington, DC.

November 6, 2009

“The ABA Criminal Justice Section, in cooperation with our co-sponsors, is proud to present a one-day seminar to address a broad array of sentencing and reentry issues, with a particular emphasis on sentencing practice in white-collar cases. The conference will examine sentencing and reentry trends and opportunities for reform at both the federal and state levels. The program will begin with a plenary session on the state of the sentencing union including rates of incarceration, sentencing trends, racial disparity, alternatives to incarceration, and recent federal legislation. There will be two tracks of instruction focused on reentry and two focused on sentencing, each addressing issues of concern to different segments of the criminal justice community, including probation and parole officials, white collar crime defense attorneys, prosecutors, academics, public defenders, judges, sentencing consultants, mitigation specialists, corrections personnel, victim advocates and policy experts. One track will focus on practice and procedure issues of particular concern to criminal defense attorneys in general and white collar practitioners in particular. Confirmed speakers include Jeremy Travis, President of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the U. S. Sentencing Commission. The second annual conference is hoped to again attract a broad cross-section of those involved in perhaps the most pressing criminal justice issues of our time”.

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

August 19, 2009
1. People v. Olivo, 880, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5194; 63 A.D.3d 576; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5037, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Laura Ward, J.), …

2. People v. Gomez, 892, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5169; 63 A.D.3d 558; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5036, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (William A. Wetzel, …

3. People v. Disla, 864, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5182; 63 A.D.3d 566; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5062, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (James Yates, J.), …

4. People v. Bustamante, 899, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5174; 63 A.D.3d 561; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5042, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Bonnie Wittner, J. …

5. People v. Neary, 902, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5177; 63 A.D.3d 563; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5038, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Carol Berkman, J.), …

6. People v. Rivera, 861, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5180; 63 A.D.3d 565; 881 N.Y.S.2d 359; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5053, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Charles Solomon, J.), …

7. People v. Padworski, 893, 7538/89, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5170; 63 A.D.3d 558; 880 N.Y.S.2d 486; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5041, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), …

8. People v. Hernandez, 874, 6597/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5188; 63 A.D.3d 571; 880 N.Y.S.2d 489; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5040, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Rena K. Uviller, …

9. People v. McNeil, 885, 832/03, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5163; 63 A.D.3d 551; 881 N.Y.S.2d 417; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (William A. Wetzel, …

10. People v. Nelson, 901, 3425/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 5176; 63 A.D.3d 563; 881 N.Y.S.2d 94; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5048, June 23, 2009, Decided, June 23, 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 (Lewis Bart Stone, …
Continue reading

Source:: NYTimes.com .

Looking at the New York Times website, I discovered links to a multimedia representation of dynamic homicide activity in New York City..This presentation leads to a variety of useful information including a June 19, 2009 article by Andrew W. Lehren and Al Barker, ” In New York, Number of Killings Rises With Heat,” providing what could be considered an overview. Also included are various graphical representations which along with the article provide an analysis of homicide data giving insights about who is killed in New York City, by whom, where the murders occur and why. Last but certainly not least, a map is included which provides continuous updates of homicide locations and similar information as data becomes available.

This information should be of interest to anyone who needs updated information regarding homicide activity and trends in New York City.

Source: Quinlan Law Enforcement E-News Alert, July 16, 2009.

Warrant to seize computer records

In a case involving a narcotics arrest, the court held that a warrant allowing for the seizure of “computerized records” authorized the investigators serving the warrant to seize the defendant’s computers. The defendant argued that because the warrant did not specifically list “computers” as an item to be seized, the seizure of the computers was outside the scope of the warrant. The court reasoned that anyone with a minimum of computer knowledge would understand that seizing “computer records” would necessitate seizing the actual computers those records were contained within. The court did, however, note that seized computers should not be kept by the government indefinitely after the seizure.

Contact Information