Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

Occasionally we are asked by lawyers preparing briefs if we would consider posting the final product on this blog. In this instance we are posting an appellant brief for the New York Sourt of Appeals Second Circuit case United States v. Justin K. Dorvee. The brief was prepared by Paul J. Angioletti, attorney for the defendant. We are grateful to Mr. Angioletti for submitting his brief for posting on this blog.

The information immediately below is taken from the introductory sections to give you a quick overview of the issues involved. It is followed by a link to the complete text of the brief, which you can upload.

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUSTIN K. DORVEE

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

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. Piza-Blondet, No. 08-2263
In condemnation proceedings involving a 34 acre parcel used by the Federal Aviation Administration for aircraft navigation, the district court’s judgment is affirmed where the district court: 1) did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant’s own testimony when the court had excluded similar testimony by defendant’s expert; 2) did not err in holding that the “before and after” method was appropriate in valuing the property, assuming a partial taking; and 3) did not err in submitting to the jury unity of use. Defendant’s remaining contentions were without merit.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 11, 2009 Thompson v. Bell, No. 06-5744 In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner’s capital murder conviction, district court’s denial of relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion is reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to first rule on the merits of defendant’s remaining ineffective assistance claims, while only addressing the incompetency question if it rejects the ineffective assistance claims on the merits; 2) the case is remanded to conduct defendant’s incompetency hearing and decide the merits of his incompetency claim de novo because the Tennessee courts unreasonably applied federal law clearly established by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, (1986); and 3) district court’s dismissal of defendant’s chemical competency claim is affirmed without prejudice to defendant raising a chemical competency claim in the future should he be forcibly medicated.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 08, 2009 Harper v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 08-3413 District court’s certification of a class action lawsuit involving challenges to the constitutionality of certain intake procedures at a county jail is vacated as the intake procedures detainees are required to undergo on remand to the Sheriff’s custody after a probable cause hearing are an individual issue and thus, not appropriate for class disposition. The matter is remanded for resolution of plaintiff’s individual claims.
Continue reading

Hearing and listening to all of the media hype of the last few days, one could be convinced that the Baucus version released a couple of days ago is the only legislation being seriously considered in the present debate. Far from it. Not only do he have at least one House version of proposed health reform legislation, we also have another Senate version which was Reported by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP on July 15, 2009 and introduced yesterday as the Affordable Health Choices Act S. 1679 by the Senate HELP Committee Chairman,Tom Harkin.

This bill certainly represents a different viewpoint on health care reform than the Baucus bill and we hope it will help to level the playing field in the ongong debates and discussion on health care. The HELP Committee legislation does provide for a public option. Here is some of the language from TitleXXXI Affordable Health Care Choices for All Americans that appears on page 43 of the proposed legislation:

”(3) OFFERING OF COVERAGE.-

Today Sept. 16, 2009, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released the first draft of the committee’s long awaited proposed legislation to overhaul the country’s health care system. The proposal is the result of more than a year of preparation and more than three months of intense negotiations between a small group of Democrats and Republicans led by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.

The following are a few highlights of interest included in this 223 page proposal:

The bill includes a slimmed down price-tag of $856 billion over 10 years. Earlier versions of the health care legislation had come in costing $1 trillion or more

Here is the companion article to “In Appreciation of Library Catalogers and Cataloging Standards” posted by me 7/23/09. At the end of that article I wrote that I had asked Joni Cassidy to consider writing an article for this blog that woud explore RDA in greater depth. Joni agreed, I am proud to present to you the article below prepared by Joni and two senior members of her staff at Cassidy Cataloging Services.

David Badertscher

AACR Move Over! Here Comes RDA!

By Brett Burney Principal Burney Consultants LLC

We are proud to reprint the following article “The Emerging Field of Electronic Discovery Project Management” which first appeared as a TechnoLawyer TechnoFeature exclusive on September 1. It is being reprinted here with the written permission of both the author Brett Burney, a world recognized authority on issues related to bridging the chasm between the legal and technical frontiers of electronic discovery, and Technolawyer. Whether acknowledged or not we are living in an age of electronic discovery and must learn to cope with its challenges,which requires authorative, updated information such as that provided in Mr. Burney’s article. The complete article is presented as a pdf file provided by TechnoLawyer which can be read by clicking on the link following some introductroy material from the article we have provided below for your convenience.

INTRODUCTION

Articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post September 11, 2009 discussing memories and implications of the tragic events that occurred eight years ago on September 11, 2001:

New York Times: September 11, 2009.

Remembering a Future That Many Feared By N. R. KLEINFIELD Published: September 11, 2009 In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, many New Yorkers imagined a grim future that has not come to pass.

Contact Information