Virginia v. Moore, No. 06-1082 In a case raising the issue of whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest based on probable cause but prohibited by state law, the Supreme Court rules that warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the Constitution, and that while states are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the Fourth Amendment's protections. Read more...

We have posted the new crack and immigration guidelines, as well as the revisions to the introductory Chapter One. The crack guidelines, effective May 1, (and retroactive) were passed to eliminate the "bad math" problem in the conversion table that deprived some defendants who were convicted of offenses involving crack and one or more other substances from receiving the two level decrease. The other amendments are effective November 1.

The 10th edition of "An Introduction to Federal Sentencing" is avalable for download.

Click here to download the guide

Wright v. Van Patten, No. 07-212
Grant of habeas relief from a conviction and sentence for first-degree reckless homicide is reversed where, contrary to the ruling below, no clearly established law contrary to the state court's conclusion justified collateral relief with regard to a claim that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his participation in a plea hearing by speaker phone.

Gall v. US, No. 06-7949
In reviewing the reasonableness of sentences imposed by district judges, while the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended Sentencing Guidelines range is relevant, courts of appeals must review all sentences whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Read more...

View the Docket for Gall v. US

Watson v. US, No. 06-571
In the context of criminal sentencing, a person who trades his drugs for a gun does not "use" a firearm "during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A). Read more...

Kimbrough v. US, No. 06-6330
Under US v. Booker, the cocaine Sentencing Guidelines, like all other Guidelines, are advisory only, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in holding that a sentence outside the guidelines range is per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses. A judge may determine that, in a particular case, a within-Guidelines sentence is "greater than necessary" to serve the objectives of sentencing, and in doing so, the judge may consider the disparity between the Guidelines' treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses. Read more...

View the Docket for Kimbrough v. US

Logan v. US, No. 06-6911 The "civil rights restored" exemption from enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), contained in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(20), does not cover the case of an offender who retained civil rights at all times, and whose legal status, postconviction, remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation. Read more...

See the Docket for Logan v. US

Happy Holidays! The Training Branch of the Office of Defender Services will present the Winning Strategies seminar from February 14-16, 2008 in New Orleans. Winning Strategies is a valuable educational opportunity for both experienced and new panel attorneys that focuses on the nuts and bolts of federal criminal practice, including effective sentencing advocacy. Financial assistance is available to qualified individuals. Attached is a draft agenda and flyer announcing the training program.

Please also note that further information, registration forms and financial assistance applications for Winning Strategies, can be found on www.fd.org.

Wrapping up its 2006-2007 term, the U.S. Supreme Court June 28 decided its lone outstanding case related to the criminal justice system.

In Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407, the court awarded a new day in court to a Texas death row inmate who seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that he is incompetent to be executed. According to his experts, the petitioner understands that he is to be put to death and the factual predicate for it, but he is under a delusion that the true reason for his death sentence is state officials' desire to silence his preaching. The 5-4 court concluded that the Texas courts failed to provide the petitioner with the procedures he was due under the Constitution. The court also held that the Fifth Circuit used an improperly restrictive test in rejecting the incompetency claim on the merits. It said it is a mistake to treat a prisoner's delusional beliefs as irrelevant so long as he comprehends that the state has identified the link between his crime and the punishment to be inflicted. Along the way, the court held that a state prisoner who seeks federal habeas relief on the ground that he is incompetent to be executed, but who previously filed a petition that failed to raise that claim, need not satisfy the gatekeeping requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for presenting a new claim in a second or successive petition.

The U.S. Supreme Court June 21 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, the court ruled that federal appeals courts may apply a "presumption of reasonableness" to federal sentences that fall within the range of punishment recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Critics of this approach had argued that such a presumption effectively moved the guidelines system back toward the mandatory guidelines scheme that the court struck down in United States v. Booker.

The U.S. Supreme Court June 14 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306, the court held that a federal appeals court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed outside the period prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. S2107(c) for appeals whose filing period has been reopened, but within the period mistakenly allowed by a district court order.

The U.S. Supreme Court June 11 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Fry v. Pliler, No. 06-5247, the court prescribed a standard of harmless-error review for federal courts to use in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. S2254 to evaluate the prejudicial effect of constitutional errors in state trials. A federal court is to apply the "substantial and injurious effect" standard of Brecht v. Abramson on habeas review, regardless of whether the state court recognized the error and reviewed it under Chapman v. California's "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, the court held.

The U.S. Supreme Court May 14 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Schriro v. Landrigan, No. 05-1575, the court decided that a federal district court on habeas corpus review of a state death sentence did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the petitioner an evidentiary hearing to pursue a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at sentencing. The petitioner had argued that his lawyer should have conducted a further investigation into possible mitigating circumstances even after the petitioner had forbidden him to present any mitigating evidence whatsoever.

The U.S. Supreme Court April 30 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Scott v. Harris, No. 05-1631, the court held that a police officer's use of his vehicle to ram a fleeing driver's car during a high-speed pursuit, causing it leave the road and crash, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in view of the danger the driver posed to innocent bystanders. Therefore, the court ruled, the officer was entitled to summary judgment in a civil rights lawsuit filed by the driver for injuries resulting from the crash.

The U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 28 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Whorton v. Bockting, No. 05-595, the court held that its landmark decision in Crawford v. Washington, which greatly restricted the admissibility of testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not testify at trial, is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Applying the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, the unanimous court decided that Crawford established a new rule of criminal procedure that did not embody a "watershed" principle that would implicate the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.

The U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 21 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Wallace v. Kato, No. 05-1240, the court decided that the statute of limitations for filing a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. S1983 seeking damages for a false arrest that led to criminal proceedings begins to run once the plaintiff becomes detained pursuant to legal process. Accordingly, it rejected a plaintiff's assertion that the limitations period in his false arrest case commenced when charges against him were dropped and he was released from custody, holding instead that the clock began to run when he appeared before a magistrate and was bound over for trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 20 decided one case related to the criminal justice system.

In Lawrence v. Florida, No. 05-8820, the court held that the one-year limitations period for filing a federal habeas corpus petition is not tolled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2244(d)(2), between the time a prisoner is denied state post-conviction relief and the time the U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition for certiorari challenging the state court's denial of relief.

From November 15-16, 2007, the Training Branch in the Office of Defender Services will present the Train the Trainer Workshop in Seattle, Washington. The Train the Trainer Workshop is intended to enhance training skills and expand the pool of educated and experienced trainers available to serve as faculty at Training Branch events, as well as local training programs for CJA panel attorneys and federal defender staff. Participants will discuss and apply principles of adult learning, effective training design and persuasive presentation techniques and methodologies. It is open to federal defender staff (Assistant Federal Defenders, Computer Systems Administrators, Paralegals and Investigators) and CJA panel attorneys.

Registration Form Agenda

The PowerPoint presentations and all printed documentation from the Federal Criminal Practice Seminar held on October 12, 2007 have been posted to the CJA Panel Member section. (username and password required).

Effective August 28, the Second Circuit adopted Local Rule 34 which provides that from now on oral argument will be provided only upon request of the parties. The rule requires counsel for all parties to confer and file within 14 days after the due date of the last brief, a joint statement specifying which parties, if fewer than all, seek oral argument or whether the parties agree to submit the case on the briefs. Failure to timely submit the joint statement will generally result in the case being decided on the briefs. A copy of the full Rule and a form joint statement is available on the Second Circuit website.

Click here for the court's order

Interim Local Rule 34 can be found here.

Interim Local Rule 34(a)(2) joint statement to be submitted by counsel can be found here.