In a post on the Social Media Student Blog Josh Cameron writes:
It’s no secret that Google Scholar now includes court opinions and legal journals. The legal journal articles are just search results that will redirect you to the hosting site. However, a large number of the court opinions are hosted right in Google Scholar. The only problem is that linking to these opinions is not the clearest thing in the world.
When you do visit this blog don’t forget the comments, they are interesting as well.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
March 29, 2010 – April 2, 2010.
——————————————————————————–
U.S. Supreme Court, March 30, 2010 Berghuis v. Smith, No. 08–1402 In habeas proceedings brought by an individual convicted of second degree murder by an all-white jury, the Sixth Circuit’s reversal of the denial of petitioner’s habeas petition is reversed where Duren v. Missouri, 439 U. S. 357 (1979), hardly established — much less “clearly” so — that petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community, because petitioner’s evidence gave the Michigan Supreme Court little reason to conclude that the county’s juror assignment order had any significant effect on the representation of African-Americans in the venire.
U.S. Supreme Court, March 31, 2010 Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651 In postconviction proceedings arising from a drug distribution prosecution, after which petitioner faced deportation based on his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of the plea, denial of postconviction relief is reversed and remanded where, because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, petitioner sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. ..
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, April 01, 2010 US v. Charlton, No. 08-1797 Defendant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act are affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to establish that the government purposely discriminated against African-Americans in exercising its peremptory challenge against a juror and thus the district court committed no error – clear or plain – in permitting the government’s peremptory challenge against that prospective juror; and 2) the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal. ..
Continue reading
The Internet Society’s New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) has for some years been following the .nyc and ICANN process on behalf of the NYC community and will, on Saturday April 10 2010, host a symposium “dot nyc – How are we doing?” at NYU. Vendors Eric Brunner-Williams of CORE Internet Council of Registrars and Antony Van Couvering of Minds +
Machines will reveal details of their proposals to the City, after which there will be a discussion “What’s it for?” about possible applications – civic, community, commercial, and “outside the box” –
for a local top level domain.
This morning I was one of many who received the following e-mail from Jessica Van Buren of the Utah State Law Library. :
A few weeks ago I asked if any of you had disaster plans to share. I offered to compile responses for a new Toolkit page on the SCCLL [ State Court and County Law Libries Special Interest Section of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) ] website if there was interest.
There was plenty of interest! Only two had plans to share, but it’s a start. The information I gathered is now on the new Disaster Planning page on the SCCLL website at http://www.aallnet.org/sis/sccll/toolkit/disaster-planning.htm.
On October 6, 2009 the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a request to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for access to records concerning “use of social networking websites (including, but not limited to Facebook, MYSpace, Twitter, Flickr and other online social media) for investigative (crimiinal or otherwise) data gathering purposes created since January 2003…”. The response from DOJ, date stamped March 3, 2010 states that “While processing your request we located one record totaling 33 pages. After careful review of this document we determined to release this item in part.”. It goes on to explain that material being witheld from this one document, Obtaining and Using Evidence From Social Networking Sites, consists of work telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of DOJ attorneys..
Click here to download the document: OBTAINING AND USING EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES
Top ten stories for week ending April 2, 2010:
Layoffs Lovells to Shutter 20-Lawyer Chicago Office Mar 30, 2010, 02:38 pm CDT
International Law
Citing a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on March 1 that a New York state statute that permits stiffer sentences for persistent felony offenders violates defendant’s constitutional rights. In the ruling Judge Ralph K. Winter wrote:
“We hold that the Sixth Amendment Right to a jury trial, applicable to the states as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the type of judicial fact finding resulting in enhanced sentences under New York’s {Persistent Felony Offender] statute.”
Reporting on the decision in the April 1, 2010 New York Law Journal Joel Stqashenko writes, “The immediate effect of yesterday’s ruling was not clear. Second Circuit rulings on New York law are not binding on the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. The federal panel did not, howeverk that state court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the persistent felony offencer statute have been ‘unreasonable’ in light of seemingly contrary U.S. Supreme Court decisions in similar cases.”
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
U.S. Supreme Court, March 08, 2010 Bloate v. US, No. 08–728 In a drug and firearm possession prosecution, the Eighth Circuit’s order affirming the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on Speedy Trial Act grounds is reversed where the time granted to prepare pretrial motions was not automatically excludable from the 70-day limit under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(1), and such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7).
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 11, 2010 Peralta v. US, No. 08-1765 In proceedings involving defendant’s pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 to vacate his sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea, sentencing, and direct appeal, the district court’s denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not commit err in finding that defendant was not denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and 2) defendant’s other issues outside the certificate of appealability are waived.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 11, 2010 US v. Mejia, No. 08-2505 Defendant’s conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress his incriminating statements; 2) defendant’s evidentiary claims are rejected as there was no abuse of discretion in admitting any of the evidence; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Continue reading
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw
U.S. Supreme Court, March 08, 2010 Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US, No. 08–1119 In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act’s (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit’s order rejecting the district court’s conclusion that attorneys are not “debt relief agencies” under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA’s disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528’s requirements were reasonably related to the government’s interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals’ order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advis! ing a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 2010 Foley v. Town of Randolph, No. 09-1558 In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit claiming that he was wrongfully retaliated against in violation of his First Amendment rights when he was suspended, as a Chief of the Fire Department, for fifteen days based on public statements he made at the scene of a fatal fire, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as, under the circumstances of the press conference in the case, there could be no doubt that plaintiff was speaking in his official capacity and not as a citizen when he addressed budgetary and staffing shortfalls the department.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, March 11, 2010 Peralta v. US, No. 08-1765 In proceedings involving defendant’s pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 to vacate his sentence on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea, sentencing, and direct appeal, the district court’s denial of the motion is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not commit err in finding that defendant was not denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel; and 2) defendant’s other issues outside the certificate of appealability are waived Continue reading
House Democrats are reported to be making a final push this weekend to pass health care legislation. To that end a nearly final version of a bill, along with a report on the bill’s cost by the Congressional Budget Office, was unveiled yesterday. A final showdown regarding this legislation is expected this Sunday March 21.
As part of our series of postings regarding efforts to overhaul the health care system in the United States we are making the following documents accessible:
