Articles Posted in Criminal Law and Justice

by

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

February 16 – February 20, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 19, 2009 Yeboah-Sefah v. Ficco, No. 07-2585
Denial of habeus corpus relief by district court is affirmed where the state court reasonably concluded: 1) plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because he made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel’s conflict of interest; 2) plaintiff cannot satisfy standards set forth in Strickland and adequately prove constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3) plaintiff right to due process was not violated as he was determined to be competent a week before the trial and no evidence was brought to light indicating the competency determination needed to be revisited.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, February 17, 2009 Sledge v. Kooi, No. 07-1547 In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 23, 2009

1. People v. Jackson, 5272, 2369/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1289; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1218, February 19, 2009, Decided, February 19, 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.

Continue reading

by

QUESTION:

“…We have a defendant charged with child molestation. The child is the defendant’s niece. The defendant is in his 20s, is deaf and mute and family speaks Spanish. The family has created a home sign language to communicate with the defendant. The court has excluded the brother (father of the child molested) as someone to communicate between the court and the defendant due to the obvious conflict. A sister was questioned in court as to her ability to communicate and it was determined that the home sign language was extremely basic information and she did not have the ability to communicate the court process to the defendant nor did she understand the court process. Today we had an certified American Sign Language interpreter who also is a Spanish interpreter. He was able to communicate very basic words i.e. mother, father, Mexico, hospital but did not believe he could communicate well enough with the defendant to explain the court process or the allegations to him.

Have any of you encountered this situation, and if so, how did you handle it?”

Continue reading

by

From: Resource Desk, Quinlan’s Law Enforcement Enews Alert, February 17, 2008.

Last year was one of the safest years for U.S. law enforcement in decades. The number of officers killed in the line of duty fell sharply in 2008 when compared with 2007, and officers killed by gunfire reached a 50-year low.

Based on analysis of preliminary data, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF) and Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.) found that 140 officers died in the line of duty last year. That is 23 percent lower than the 2007 figure of 181, and represents one of the lowest years for officer fatalities since the mid-1960s.

Continue reading

by

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

February 11,17, 2009.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE People v. Williams, No. 22mem09 The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed where there is no legal reason to upset the court’s exercise of its discretion in allowing the prosecution to use prior convictions to impeach a defendant’s testimony.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, INTERNATIONAL LAW People v. Romeo, No. 7opn09 Reversal of a conviction for manslaughter is affirmed where the People’s lengthy post-indictment delay occasioned by delaying their prosecution in favor of a Canadian prosecution violated defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING People v. Taveras, No. 2opn09 Sentence for a criminal sexual act in the third degree and falsifying business records in the first degree is affirmed where the actus reus underlying the crime of criminal sexual act in the third degree does not constitute a “material element” of falsifying business records in the first degree, thus the Appellate Division correctly held that the sentencing court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for these crimes was not in error.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE People v. Rouse, No. 8mem09 Order of the Appellate Division is reversed and the indictment dismissed where the People did not satisfy their statutory readiness obligation. .

INSURANCE LAW In the Matter of the Ancillary Receivership of Reliance Ins. Co., No. ssm2ent09 In an insurance dispute, order of the Appellate Division is affirmed where the Appellate Division did not err in concluding that the insurance company could not rely on an August 1993 letter as the basis to avoid coverage under the claims-made policy.
Continue reading

by

To be held on April 3-4, 2009 in Tempe, Arizona.

The Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University will host an international conference, Forensic Science for the 21st Century: The National Academy of Sciences Report and Beyond,” on April 3-4 in Tempe, Ariz. The focal point of the conference, for which CLE will be available, is the long-awaited National Academy of Sciences’ report on the future of forensic science, which will be released at 1 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at a press briefing and via Webcast at www.national-academies.org Early registration for the conference, which offers a $250 discount off the at-the-door rate, closes on Friday, Feb. 27. The conference will include nearly three dozen renowned experts in the field, including both co-chairmen of the NAS forensic science committee, and many others. This conference is a must-attend for any practitioner who produces, uses or evaluates forensic science evidence, including prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys, judges, forensic scientists, criminalists and others. Details: lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/index.html

by

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

February 09 – February 13, 2009
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 09, 2009 US v. Rivera-Rivera, No. 05-2495, 05-2498
Defendants’ convictions and sentences stemming from the armed robbery of a lottery ticket business in Puerto Rico are affirmed over claims that: 1) a key witness’s in-court identification was tainted by unnecessarily suggestive pretrial encounters; 2) the government failed to meet its burden of proving that the robbery affected interstate commerce; and 3) there were multiple errors during sentencing, including that the district court improperly imposed a 25-year mandatory minimum based on facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 11, 2009 US v. Combs, No. 06-2258 A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial court improperly declined to give his proposed jury instruction regarding witness intimidation; and 2) the government failed to offer sufficient evidence that the firearm and ammunition had traveled in interstate commerce.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 13, 2009 US v. Campusano, No. 07-1931, 07-2442 Defendants’ sentences for drug offenses are affirmed over claims that: 1) for purposes of a drug quantity determination, defendants never intended to buy one hundred kilos and they lacked the financial capacity to do so; and 2) the district court erred in imposing a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice based on their testimony at trial.
Continue reading

by

Update from the Lexis Alert Service,

February 13,18, 2009
1. People v. Anonymous, 5224, 5721/04, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1005; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1001, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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, …

2. People v. James, 5229, 6659/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1009; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 998, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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, …

3. People v. Davis, 5232, 5233, 2736/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 1011; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 996, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 …
Amended; Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, …

4. People v. White, 5194, 5680/06, 5116/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 986; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1025, February 10, 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 (Charles H. Solomon, …

5. People v. McCroskey, 5200, 5911/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 991; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1026, February 10, 2009, Decided, February 10, 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 (Michael J. Obus, …
Continue reading

Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design