Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[09/08]
US v. Diaz-Jimenez
In a prosecution of defendant for being present in the United States illegally, district court's imposition of a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment is reversed and remanded as there was a serious breach of the plea agreement that defendant be recommended a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range of 18 months, and the defendant is also entitled to be resentenced by a different judge.
[09/08]
Mitts v. Bagley
Defendant's petition for habeas relief from his capital murder conviction is granted where: 1) the holding of the Supreme Court of Ohio was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in Beck v. Alabama, because Beck compels that proper instructions must make clear that the jury does not have to complete its death deliberation before considering a life sentence, and thus, defendant's due process rights were violated; and 2) district court's conclusions as to ineffective assistance of counsel are affirmed.
[09/08]
US v. McGill
Defendant's firearm possession sentence is affirmed where, contrary to the government's contention, defendant's prior felony possession of a short-barreled shotgun was not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
[09/08]
Grider v. Auburn
In an action by plaintiffs who owned a bar/restaurant in Auburn, Alabama, against City of Auburn and City employees under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming that the City and its agents filed false bribery charges and selectively enforced regulatory laws in order to harm plaintiffs' business, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where, absent the offering of funds, there was no bribery and no arguable probable cause for defendant-officer to arrest plaintiff. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked evidence that the city defendants conspired with the officer to maliciously prosecute plaintiff.
[09/08]
US v. Santana-Perez
Defendants' convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. section 2237(a)(1), which makes it a crime for the master, operator, or person in charge of vessel of the United States, or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly fail to obey an order by an authorize Federal law enforcement officer to heave to that vessel, are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in denying a motion for acquittal as there was sufficient evidence that the defendants heard and understood the Coast Guard's order to heave-to; 2) defendant's challenge to the district court's ruling that evidence relating to a prior conviction could be admitted to impeach defendant if he testified at trial is rejected; 3) the government did not improperly vouch for its own witnesses during closing argument; 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a missing evidence instruction; and 5) the district court did not engage in improper questioning during defendant's testimony.
[09/08]
US v. Sliwo
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, as well as aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana is reversed where: 1) the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the purpose of the conspiracy was the acquisition of marijuana; and 2) defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting must also be reversed as government has failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant knew he was involved involved in a scheme to procure marijuana.
[09/08]
US v. Johnson
In a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal seizure is reversed and remanded as, because the totality of the circumstances did not provide a particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant of criminal activity, and because the Fourth Amendment simply does not allow a detention based on an officer's gut feeling that a suspect is up to no good, the officers seized defendant without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
[09/08]
US v. Gunter
Defendant's conviction for drug related crimes and a 96-month sentence are affirmed where: 1) the district court meaningfully considered defendant's case and mitigation arguments; 2) defendant's sentence is substantively reasonable; and 3) the record flatly contradicts defendant's claim that he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently plead guilty.
[09/08]
Stevens v. Epps
In a capital habeas matter, a denial of petitioner's habeas petition is affirmed where, because the trial court allowed a juror to be struck after having rejected the prosecutor's assertion that she did not complete her juror questionnaire, it was not unreasonable for the Mississippi Supreme Court to conclude that the trial court implicitly credited the prosecutor's assertion that he struck the juror because she was inattentive, and thus, that court properly rejected petitioner's Batson claim.
[09/08]
Thompson v. Runnels
In a first-degree murder prosecution, a denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed where the admission at trial of petitioner's confession violated the privilege against self-incrimination, because the investigating officers deliberately withheld Miranda warnings until after he had confessed to the crime.
[09/08]
Rhodes v. Robinson
In an action alleging that prison guards violated plaintiff's civil rights by retaliating against him for exercising his First Amendment right to pursue the prison grievance process against them, a dismissal of the complaint is reversed in part where the new claims in plaintiff's second amended complaint (SAC) should not have been dismissed, because they were properly exhausted before he tendered his SAC to the district court for filing.
[09/08]
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Lewis
Conviction of defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm and sentence to fifteen years in prison is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to a justification instruction, and as such, the trial court's failure to provide a justification instruction was not error; and 2) the district court's order dismissing defendant's second Strickland claim is affirmed, without prejudice to defendant's ability to assert it in a collateral proceeding.
[09/08]
Heishman v. Ayers
In a capital habeas matter, the denial of the petition is affirmed where: 1) there is no reasonable likelihood that certain false testimony could have changed the jury's verdict or that the cumulative impact of the false testimony and undisclosed Brady material would have changed the jury's verdict; 2) although counsel's investigation regarding mitigation evidence could have been initiated earlier, petitioner did not show that counsel's timetable was per se constitutionally deficient under professional norms existing in 1980; and 3) the additional mitigation evidence that might have been uncovered was not compelling when weighed against the case in aggravation.
[09/08]
Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Martinez
Conviction of defendant for kidnapping for rape and sentence to thirty years in prison is affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping for rape conviction; 2) any Doyle violation in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) defendant's remaining contentions are rejected as meritless.
[09/08]
US v. Seay
Defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm while being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance is affirmed where: 1) defendant waived his Fed. R. Crim. P. 48 argument by pleading guilty; 2) defendant's Second Amendment challenge was jurisdictional and, therefore, survived his guilty plea; and 3) 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3) was the type of "longstanding prohibition[] on the possession of firearms" that Heller declared presumptively lawful.
Back to Main
