Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[05/16]
US v. Williams
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.
[05/16]
Reese v. Herbert
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.
[05/14]
Justice v. State of Delaware
In an appeal from a conviction for rape-related offenses raising the issue of whether detective-witness's statement about obtaining defendant's date of birth from an "Automated Criminal Justice System" constituted a "prejudicial outburst" warranting a mistrial, the Delaware Supreme Court rules that although the prosecutor's question and detective's answers could have been better phrased, the trial judge's curative instruction rendered any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
More...
Evidence
[05/16]
US v. Williams
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.
[05/15]
U.S. v. Igbinosun
A conviction for importing a controlled substance is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) whether waiver of a jury trial was knowing and intelligent; 2) a failure of the district court to permit defendant to make a closing argument; and 3) whether the verdicts on a count of possession with intent to distribute and the importation count were inconsistent, or premised on an error of law.
[05/14]
Justice v. State of Delaware
In an appeal from a conviction for rape-related offenses raising the issue of whether detective-witness's statement about obtaining defendant's date of birth from an "Automated Criminal Justice System" constituted a "prejudicial outburst" warranting a mistrial, the Delaware Supreme Court rules that although the prosecutor's question and detective's answers could have been better phrased, the trial judge's curative instruction rendered any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
More...
Habeas Corpus
[05/14]
Skinner v. Quarterman
An application for a certificate of appealability (COA) from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) a decision not to test DNA evidence from the crime scene did not rise to ineffective assistance of counsel since it was an informed, strategic decision; 2) failure to impeach a witness did not amount to a serious error ; 3) failure to present evidence that defendant was allergic to codeine caused no prejudice; 4) COA is granted as to an issue regarding the failure to obtain a blood spatter report; 5) COA is granted as to a claim of failure to present testimony of an additional witness.
[05/14]
Correll v. Ryan
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded for a new penalty hearing where defendant was constitutionally entitled to the presentation of a mitigation defense, but did not have an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence. (Amended opinion on denial of rehearing en banc)
[05/14]
Newland v. Hall
In a death penalty case, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where the state habeas court properly applied the relevant and controlling Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
More...
Sentencing
[05/16]
US v. Perez
A person on supervised release had a right to cross-examine the laboratory technician who tested a urine sample containing an illegal drug, where: 1) a test report itself stated the sample was "dilute"; 2) the evidence presented showed the person on supervised release did not have an opportunity herself to dilute nor add a substance to the sample; and 3) the result of the urinalysis was critical to support a finding that the person on supervised release had possessed or used illegal drugs. The circuit court emphasizes that it does not hold that a releasee always has a right to cross-examine the technician who tested a urine sample.
[05/16]
U.S. v. Wheeler
A conviction for using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1) is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction; and 2) an instruction to the jury regarding the use of a firearm in relation to the underlying crime.
[05/16]
US v. Williams
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|
