“The “black letter” Standards for Criminal Justice are available on the Standards homepage at www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/home.html Standards that heve been published with commentary since 1991 are also available in book format on the Web site as well as in hard copy. Listed below are the individual sets of Standards and the dates of publication.”*
Collateral Sanctions and discretionary Disqualification of Convicted Persons (published 2004)
Criminal Appeals (published 1980, 1986 supp.)
New: (February 2009) Criminal Mental Health and Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony: A Comprehensive Reference Manual for Lawyers, Judges and Criminal Justice Professionals
This Comprehensive Reference Manual examines both criminal mental health and disability discrimination law from the points of view of lawyers, judges and other professionals within the criminal justice system. The manual builds on established resources within the ABA, including the Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, Mental Disability Law, Evidence and Testimony and Disability Discrimination Law, Evidence and Testimony. It synthesizes the best and most recent information at the ABA on mental health and discrimination law that specifically pertains to criminal justice matters. It also references the ABA’s Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards. Regular: $110; $93.50 discounted. 458 pages.
For additional information, click here.
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
VAN DE KAMP, JOHN, ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS L. (No. 07-854.)
AP reporting: The Court threw out a lawsuit by a Los Angeles man wrongfully convicted of murder and gave district attorneys a broad shield against being sued even if their management mistakes send an innocent person to prison.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
January 29, 2009
1. People v. Rodriguez, 5115, 810/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 434; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426, January 27, 2009, Decided, January 27, 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 ABA Criminal Justice Section Juvenile Justice Committee and The Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants and The Council on Racial & Ethnic Justice Present;
The New Paradigm of Juvenile Justice
Complementary CLE
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
January 21 & 26, 2009
1. People v. Lofton, 4649, 2903/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9261; 56 A.D.3d 371; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8795, November 25, 2008, 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.
To view the full-text of this document you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
Former NY Senate Majority Leader Indicted on Federal Corruption Charges US V. JOSEPH L. BRUNO (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.N.Y., Jan. 23, 2009) – Republican Joseph Bruno, the former New York Senate Majority Leader, was indicted by a federal grand jury on criminal charges accusing him of public corruption by accepting nearly $3.2 million over more than a decade from labor unions.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
January 19 – January 23, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Waddington v. Sarausad, No. 07-772 In a case arising from a fatal drive-by shooting of a group of students standing in front of a Seattle high school, grant of a petition for habeas relief from defendant’s conviction for being an accomplice to second-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault is reversed where: 1) Washington courts reasonably concluded that the trial court’s instruction to the jury regarding accomplice liability was not ambiguous; and 2) even were it ambiguous, the circuit court still erred in finding the instruction so ambiguous as to cause a federal constitutional violation.
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of plaintiff’s house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant (whom plaintiff had voluntarily admitted to the premises), a court of appeals ruling reversing a ruling that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the procedure the Supreme Court mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement; and 2) petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional.
U.S. Supreme Court, January 21, 2009 Spears v. US, No. 08–5721 In proceedings arising from the government’s appeal of a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine, a circuit court’s ruling reversing a mandatory minimum sentence is reversed where district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack-cocaine Sentencing Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines Continue reading
January 23, 2009 From the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section “> www.abanet.org/crimjust“>
Spears v. US, No. 08–5721
The government appealed a sentence for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and powder cocaine in which the District Court reduced the sentencing range for crack cocaine from the 100 to 1 ratio to a 20 to one ratio based on the U. S. Sentencing Commission guidelines and the Smith and Perry cases. The District Court imposed a sentence based on a 20 to 1 ratio which was its interpretation of the mandatory minimum sentence in the case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district Court’s interpretation of the minimum sentence in the case and imposed a tougher sentence based on the 100 to 1 ratio. The Supreme Court remanded for rehearing by the Eighth Circuit which again imposed the tougher sentence. On rehearing the Supreme Court reversed stating, “we now clarify that district courts are entitled to reject and vary categorically from the crack cocaine Guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
January 19.21, 2009:
1. People v. Starnes, 5042, 5249/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 125; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 119, January 15, 2009, Decided, January 15, 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.
Criminal Law Library Blog