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.
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)
April 8, 2009
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
Corley v. United States No. 07-10441
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. ..
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)
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.
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.”
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
March 30 – April 3, 2009:
U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2009 Rivera v. Illinois, No. 07-9995 Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court’s good-faith error in denying the defendant’s peremptory challenge to a juror. Defendant’s murder conviction is therefore affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court, April 01, 2009 Harbison v. Bell, No. 07-8521 In a capital habeas proceeding, the denial of federal appointed counsel’s motion to expand the scope of her representation to include state clemency proceedings is reversed, where: 1) a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel, because 28 U.S.C. section 2253(c)(1)(A) governs only final orders that dispose of a habeas corpus proceeding’s merits; and 2) because state clemency proceedings are “available” to state petitioners who obtain representation under 28 U.S.C. section 3599(a)(2), the statute’s plain language indicates that appointed counsel’s authorized representation includes such proceedings.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2009 US v. Gonzalez-Ramirez , No. 07-1880 Conviction and sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a competency hearing and request for a continuance; 2) the court did abuse its discretion in admitting the cocaine and packaging as evidence, or the officer’s testimony related to the evidence; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2009 US v. Rivera , No. 07-2675
District court judgment is affirmed where the “did assault and beat” charging language in the criminal complaint sufficed to identify the offense as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act or a “crime of violence” under the career offender provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Read more…
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2009 US v. Marsh , No. 07-1698
Sentence for drug crimes is affirmed where the court was not unreasonable in applying a twelve-month upward departure from defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence, as the court made an informed decision and also stated it would have reached the same result under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as it would have in a non-Guideline setting.
Continue reading
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
April 6, 2009.
1. People v. Nunez, 212, 4936/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2535; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2442, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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 (James A. Yates, …
2. People v. Pearson, 225, 225A, 225B, 4340/06, 4464/06, 4478/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2543; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2428, April 2, 2009, Decided, 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 …
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J. …
3. People v. Smith, 217, 5584/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2538; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2431, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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, …
4. People v. McClain, 222, 1200/06, 223, 224, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2542; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2441, April 2, 2009, Decided, April 2, 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 …
… Defendant-Appellant. The People of the State …
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, …
5. People v. Tucker, 176, 800/07, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2469; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2510, March 31, 2009, Decided, 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 (Bonnie Wittner, J. …
6. People v. Bush, 193, 5516/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 2477; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2504, March 31, 2009, Decided, March 31, 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 (Charles H. Solomon,
Continue reading
The U.S. Justice Department moved on Wednesday April 1 to drop all charges in the case against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. In a federal court on Wednesday Justice Department lawyers explained that in addition to earlier disclosures they discovered further evidence of misconduct that raised questions about the way the entire case was handled.
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. issued a statement (see link below) explaining the Department of Justice position and said that he would not seek a new trial.
Statement of Attorney Gereral Eric Holder Jr. Regarding Former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens
Criminal Law Library Blog