Criminal News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] US v. Blitch
Convictions of defendants for conspiring to distribute 15 kilograms of cocaine are vacated and remanded as the court's failure to individually voir dire the second panel regarding its safety concerns, and her instructions to keep deliberating after the jury poll, when the jury had specifically requested to leave for the day, leads to the conclusion that the defendants should receive a new trial.

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/03] Socha v. Pollard
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, in concluding that another district judge's order extending the limitations period was an impermissible advisory opinion and thus of no effect because the court issued the order before defendant had filed his petition, is vacated and remanded where: 1) an order accepting a filing after the limitations period has run is not beyond the power of the district court, and it is effective if it can meet the standards for equitable tolling that the Supreme Court described in Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); and 2) the district court erred by focusing too closely on the fact that defendant had not already filed something that he had labeled as his petition as, not only does the motion anticipate an imminent action in which defendant and the state will be adverse, but also the parties have opposing interests on the immediate question of whether to toll the statute of limitations.

[09/03] US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.

[09/03] McCormick v. Adams
A denial of a petition for habeas relief brought by a prisoner who waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial and now claimed the waiver was not knowing and voluntary is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the trial court led him to believe he could revoke his Faretta waiver at any time, and that he relied on this promise in waiving his right to counsel; and 2) he made a mid-trial request for counsel that was wrongly denied by the trial court.

[09/03] US v. Epstein
Prior terms of imprisonment for violations of supervised release do not limit the maximum sentence a district court may impose for a subsequent violation of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(e)(3), as amended by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act).

[09/03] US v. McGilberry
District court's conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) government proved a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; and 3) the court did not err by permitting the government to introduce subsequent propensity evidence under Federal Rule Evidence 404(b).

[09/03] US v. Talamantes
In a prosecution of defendant for unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction, district court's imposition of a sentence of 77 months' imprisonment is affirmed as the sentence was not unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an increase under Guidelines section 2L1.2(b)(A).

Read More

Evidence

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/03] Stock v. Rednour
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his first degree murder conviction of his girlfriend is affirmed as the Illinois court reviewing defendant's conviction did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, because the testimony he intended to elicit from a key witness was inconclusive for the purpose of impeachment.

[09/03] US v. McGilberry
District court's conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) government proved a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; and 3) the court did not err by permitting the government to introduce subsequent propensity evidence under Federal Rule Evidence 404(b).

[09/03] Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).

[09/03] Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
In an interpleader action to determine the rights to life insurance proceeds, district court's grant of decedent's sister's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly admitted the affidavits as, under Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 207 S.W. 3d 442 (Ark. 2005), a deceased insured's oral statements to several people concerning that insured's future intentions to change the beneficiary in an insurance contract in favor of another are admissible to resolve disputes as to who is the proper beneficiary; and 2) the decedent's sister rebutted the presumption of undue influence with the affidavits in support of her motion for summary judgment.

[09/02] Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof; and 2) plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.

Read More

Sentencing

Read More