Libraries are bridges to information and knowledge.

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

June 15-19, 2009.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 2009 Nijhawan v. Holder, No. 08–495 Petitioner’s removal from the U.S. based on his commission of an “aggravated felony” is affirmed, where the $10,000 threshold in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed a fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion, rather than to an element of the fraud or deceit crime.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009 District Atty.’s Offc. v. Osborne, No. 08–6 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff’s claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State’s evidence for DNA testing.

U.S. Supreme Court, June 18, 2009 Yeager v. US, No. 08–67 In an appeal from the District Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury’s verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals’ preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Continue reading

Identity theft “In a case involving identity theft, the court found that a search warrant for computer data was valid even though its actual wording was overbroad, since the officers executing the search acted in good faith that the warrant was valid. The defendant was a United States postal worker who intercepted certain credit card information from individuals on her route. After an investigation, postal inspectors applied for a warrant to search both the defendant’s home and computers. The warrant was drafted in such a way that it was overbroad in its reference to the computerized data. However, the court found that because the officers believed the warrant to be valid and limited their search in a reasonable manner, the search was not unconstitutional.”

Citation: U.S. v. Otero, 2009 WL 1119657 (10th Cir. 2009)

Hard drive mirror image “In a case in which a prosecutor has complied with its duty to provide discovery by delivering a transcript of evidence from the hard drive of a police computer, the defendant argued that he had the right to obtain a mirror image of the computer hard drive without making a prima facie showing that the information in the transcript was false, incomplete, adulterated, or spoliated. The court concluded that without making such a showing, the defendant had no right to obtain a copy of the hard drive. The defendant was accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor. The state presented evidence that included transcriptions of chat logs obtained from the defendant’s computer. When the defendant requested a mirror image of the hard drive, the state refused. The court concluded that the transcripts were sufficient evidence and that the defendant’s mere speculation that the original hard drive would vindicate him was insufficient to compel the state to produce a mirror image.”

Courtney Selby, the Collection Development/Instructional Services Librarian at the Mabee Legal information Center, University of Tulsa has summarized the results of her recent survey:

Last week I sent out a 4 question survey about recent changes in bindery policies and procedures in academic libraries. I received 16 replies (thanks so much!) and wanted to summarize them here. There were a few key similarities that I did want to point out. It looks like budgetary considerations are the primary motivators in most respondents’ review of bindery policies. Some folks did note that space considerations factored into their decisions, and those librarians often indicated that they also chose to discard unbound volumes after 2 to 3 years. Most respondents indicated that they had ceased binding journal titles available in HeinOnline, though most also continued to bind journals and bar materials from their home states. All respondents that mentioned CLE’s noted that they will continue to bind them.

· (budget reasons) stopped all binding except for exceptional cases, such as important books or books that are falling apart

Volume 1 Number 1 Spring 2009.

A publication of the Center for Elders and the Courts, National Center for State Courts.

“On behalf of the National Center for State Courts, welcome to the first edition of the CEC Sentinel. We live in challenging times. Simple demographic facts will soon impact every corner of America: There will be more older Americans than at any other time in history, living longer lives…”

The following is an announcement from Luis Villa, the outgoing Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review (STLR). Beginning with Volume X STLR will become a “formal open access journal and comply with the recent Durham Statement on open access” and will become the first Columbia journal to publish through the Columbia University Library’s archival quality Academic Commons publication system:

ANNOUNCEMENT AND LETTER:

Most of you know me from past ventures; for those who don’t, my apologies for reaching out to you in this manner, but it is a one-time event that I hope you’ll find it worth your attention.

Uncertainty in Law Circles Over New Court Ruling for Judges

By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: June 10, 2009 by the New York Times

“Lawyers across the country said that a Supreme Court ruling on conflicts of interest among elected judges could prompt a deluge of requests for judges to recuse themselves from cases.,,,”

Contact Information