Criminal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/10] US v. Fisher
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where police had probable cause to detain defendant because they were responding to a 911 call late at night, in a high crime area, with every reason to suspect gunplay, and the only vehicle at the scene looked as if it was about to depart.

[03/10] US v. Ternus
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to transport in foreign commerce stolen goods valued at $5,000 or more, knowing the goods to have been stolen, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's guilty plea waived all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against him; and 2) the district court was not required to define "foreign commerce" in order to adequately explain the nature of the charges against him.

[03/09] US v. York
Defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and carrying a destructive device are affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that the fire at issue was intentionally set; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, because defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by a jury note requesting to hear again defendant's confession; and 3) evidence that defendant had harmed his girlfriend went to issues other than defendant's character because it explained that she withheld information from the police due to her fear of defendant's threats.

[03/09] US v. Banegas
Defendant's drug conspiracy conviction is reversed where the trial court failed to state particularized reasons for requiring defendant to be shackled while defending himself pro se.

Read More

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

[02/16] US v. $22,050.00 US Currency
In an in rem forfeiture action in connection with a drug distribution and money laundering investigation wherein the United States Drug Enforcement Administration seized $22,050 from petitioner's office, judgment of the district court denying his motion to set aside default and entry of judgment in favor of the United States is reversed where: 1) in civil forfeiture cases such as this one, where the question is whether to excuse a known claimant's failure to file a verified claim and answer in the allotted time, district courts should analyze the case using the generally applicable Federal Rules (Rule 55(c)) rather than under the appellate court's requirement of "strict compliance" with the forfeiture rules; 2) the government would not have been prejudiced by setting aside the default; 3) claimant has asserted meritorious defenses to the forfeiture claim; and 4) on remand, it must be determined whether claimant was culpable under Rule 55(c) for the default by willfully failing to appear and plead.

Read More

Sentencing

[03/10] US v. Wilder
Defendants' drug conspiracy convictions and sentences are affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in excluding a document as hearsay because a witness was unable to verify that the proffered document was a public record created by the police department; 2) the government established that defendant knowingly and intentionally joined an agreement to distribute controlled substances; 3) the court was not convinced that the trial record presented an obvious case of a defendant with no predisposition to distribute crack cocaine, such that the district court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury on entrapment; and 4) the district court explained that it had considered all of the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant's history and characteristics.

[03/10] US v. Almany
In a prosecution of defendant for drug and firearm related offenses, the case is remanded for resentencing where: 1) the district court committed plain error by failing to probe defendant's understanding of the appellate waiver provision of his plea agreement, and therefore, the waiver is unenforceable against the defendant; and 2) the district court erred by sentencing defendant to both a five-year mandatory minimum sentence under the firearm statute and a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under the drug statute.

[03/09] US v. Wise
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's prior conviction under Utah law for failure to stop at the command of a police officer was a "crime of violence" under the Sentencing Guidelines; and 2) the district court erred in not assigning criminal history points for one of defendant's prior convictions, but that error did not invalidate defendant's sentence.

[03/09] In re Victor L.
In a conviction of a minor for possession of specified illegal weapons, juvenile court's order placing the defendant on probation with various conditions is affirmed for the most part with the exception of: 1) the restrictions on defendant's right to associate with individuals disapproved of by his probation officer or his parents is unconstitutionally vague and will be modified to include a personal knowledge requirement; 2) restrictions on defendant's presence "where dangerous or deadly weapons or firearms or ammunitions exist" is unconstitutional as due process requires that the probationer be informed in advance whether his conduct comports with or violates a condition of probation; and 3) to the extent the second Internet condition prohibits any "use of" or "access to" an Internet-enabled computer, it conflicts with the other two conditions, thereby making the combination of conditions unconstitutionally vague.

Read More