 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This site is best viewed at 800 x 600 and above.
On this page you will find Federal Law related information updated regularly, so check back often.
Friday, January 22, 2010 |  | ||
| |||
| Supreme Court News Updates
Judges CAN Disagree with the Career Offender Guideline Today, the Supreme Court GVR'd Vazquez v. United States (Case No. 09-5370), an 11th Circuit case. Judge Presnell originally sentenced Vazquez to 110 months' incarceration, down from the 210-262 month range for the career offender guideline. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding the sentence procedurally unreasonable because it rested on the district court's "disagreement with the guidelines, which was impermissible." At resentencing, J. Presnell found that "it may be" that the career offender guideline "is immune from the policy criticisms otherwise permissible" because the crack guidelines involved an "implied congressional policy" while the career offender guideline "is a product of direct congressional expression." The court resentenced Mr. Vazquez to 180 months' imprisonment, concluding: "[I]f I were allowed to consider what I consider to be the unjust application of 4B1.1 in this case, I would impose a sentence lower than 180 months." On appeal (by Mr. Vazquez), the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's refusal to consider its policy disagreement with the career offender guideline was not procedurally unreasonable. The court believed itself bound by United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2006), which held that the district court impermissibly ignored congressional policy by generally disagreeing with the career offender guideline. The court stated that district courts may vary from guidelines based on policy disagreements only "where Sentencing Commission policy judgment, not Congressional direction, underlies the Guideline at issue,'" and "'where that policy judgment did not arise from the Commission's exercise of its characteristic institutional role.'" Vazquez sought rehearing en banc. In his petition, Mr. Vazquez showed that the Eleventh Circuit was alone in its position (as none of the cases cited by the court really supported its position). Additionally, Mr. Vazquez cited to the fact that the Solicitor General had taken a position inconsistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing. In his petition for writ of certiorari, Mr. Vazquez reiterated the points raised in his petition for rehearing. The Solicitor General agreed that the Eleventh Circuit opinion was wrong, and asked that the Supreme Court remand the case to the Eleventh Circuit so it could affirmatively know the Solicitor General's position. Today, the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the Eleventh Circuit opinion, and remanded for further proceedings based on the Solicitor General's position. Carrying a Concealed Weapon Not a Violent Felony In Hunter v. United States (Case No. 09-122), the S Ct GVR'd another case from the 11th Circuit. Hunter was sentenced to 188 months as an Armed Career Criminal, based in part on two prior convictions for carrying a concealed weapon. To make another long procedural story short, the Solicitor General agreed that Hunter's claim (on a 2255) presented a "substantial showing" that his sentence under the ACCA, in light of Begay and Archer, violated due process because it was in excess of the ten-year statutory maximum otherwise applicable in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) cases. And today the Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's order denying Hunter's certificate of appealability and remanded "for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in her brief." Hunter v. United States, No. 09-122 (Jan. 19, 2010). | |||
| Tuesday, January 19, 2010 | | ||
| |||
| Supreme Court Syllabi
Presley v. Georgia No. 09-5270 Decided January 19, 2010 Opinion Author: Per Curiam ================================================================================= ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Per Curiam. Continue reading Presley v. Georgia ... Wellons v. Hall No. 09-5731 Decided January 19, 2010 Opinion Author: Per Curiam ================================================================================= ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Per Curiam. From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioners constitutional claims. We know that the Court of Appeals committed the same procedural error that we corrected in Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 1718). We do not know how the court would have ruled if it had the benefit of our decision in that case. | |||
| Monday, December 07, 2009 | | ||
| |||
| Supreme Court Syllabi
Michigan v. Fisher No. 0991 Decided December 07, 2009 Opinion Author: Per Curiam ================================================================================= ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN Per Curiam.
Police officers responded to a complaint of a disturbance near Allen Road in Brownstown, Michigan.FN#1 Officer Christopher Goolsby later testified that, as he and his partner approached the area, a couple directed them to a residence where a man was going crazy. Docket No. 276439, 2008 WL 786515, *1 (Mich. App., Mar. 25, 2008) (per curiam) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). Upon their arrival, the officers found a household in considerable chaos: a pickup truck in the driveway with its front smashed, damaged fenceposts along the side of the property, and three broken house windows, the glass still on the ground outside. The officers also noticed blood on the hood of the pickup and on clothes inside of it, as well as on one of the doors to the house. (It is disputed whether they noticed this immediately upon reaching the house, but undisputed that they noticed it before the allegedly unconstitutional entry.) Through a window, the officers could see respondent, Jeremy Fisher, inside the house, screaming and throwing things. The back door was locked, and a couch had been placed to block the front door. | |||
| Tuesday, December 01, 2009 | | ||
| |||
| Google Scholar Search With Full Text Legal Opinions
Google has added the ability to find and read full text legal opinions from U.S. federal and state district, appellate and supreme courts using Google Scholar. You can read about this new addition on Google's official blog. The Google Scholar search is located at: http://scholar.google.com/ | |||
| Monday, November 30, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Supreme Court Syllabi
Porter v. McCollum No. 08-10537 Decided November 30, 2009 Opinion Author: Per Curiam ================================================================================= ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Per Curiam. Petitioner George Porter is a veteran who was both wounded and decorated for his active participation in two major engagements during the Korean War; his combat service unfortunately left him a traumatized, changed man. His commanding officer's moving description of those two battles was only a fraction of the mitigating evidence that his counsel failed to discover or present during the penalty phase of his trial in 1988. In this federal postconviction proceeding, the District Court held that Porter's lawyer's failure to adduce that evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and granted his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court's determination that Porter was not prejudiced by any deficient performance by his counsel was a reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). Like the District Court, we are persuaded that it was objectively unreasonable to conclude there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that Porter's counsel neither uncovered nor presented. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari in part and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.FN1 | |||
| Monday, September 21, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Brown Bag Luncheon Seminars
The Defender Office is again offering luncheon seminars on several important topics regarding sentencing in drug cases. Hartford on Friday, September 25, at 12:30 p.m., in the GSA Conference Room on the third floor of the courthouse at 450 Main St. (just outside of the Marshal's office). New Haven Office, 265 Church St., (Century Financial Bldg.), Suite 702, on Friday October 2, also at 12:30.The program will discuss the recent successful challenges to second offender (851) notices; the government's new position on filing these notices (or not); how to handle the government's demand that a cooperator stipulate that he is 851 eligible; how to deal with the Second Circuit's decision regarding limitations on departures in U.S. v. Richardson; and the status of the bills pending in Congress to eliminate the 100 to 1 ratio and to change the rules on mandatory minimums (as well as the idea of seeking to continue sentencings in crack and man/min cases until these bills are acted upon). As you can see, this is an ambitious program, and one that will be an immense help to you in dealing with the recent and upcoming changes in sentencing law. We hope to see you there. To register for Hartford, call Annette at (860) 493-6260; for New Haven call Karen at (203) 498-4200. | |||
| Thursday, July 30, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Enhanced Notice of Attorney Redaction Responsibility
A memo from the Administrative Office has been issued notifying users of changes to the CM/ECF system regarding notification of redaction. The following excerpt if the from the memo: "The CM/ECF system has been further modified to refine the language of the message, require the acknowledgment, provide links to the Federal Rules regarding redaction, and display another reminder each time the attorney files a document." | |||
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding, No. 08-479
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear. Read more... Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., No. 07-591Defendant's drug conviction is reversed, where the trial court's admission of the prosecution's certificates by laboratory analysts, stating that material seized by police and connected to Defendant was cocaine of a certain quantity, violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Read more... | |||
| Thursday, June 18, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, No. 08-6
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff's claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing. Read more... Yeager v. US, No. 08-67In an appeal from the District Court's order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals' preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Read more... | |||
| Tuesday, June 16, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Nijhawan v. Holder, No. 08-495
Petitioner's removal from the U.S. based on his commission of an "aggravated felony" is affirmed, where the $10,000 threshold in 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed a fraud or deceit crime on a particular occasion, rather than to an element of the fraud or deceit crime. Read more... | |||
| Friday, June 12, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Boyle v. US, No. 07-1309
Defendant's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act conviction is affirmed where the District Court did not err in declining to instruct the jury that an association-in-fact enterprise must have an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages. Read more... | |||
| Tuesday, May 26, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Montejo v. Louisiana, No. 07-1529
Capital murder conviction is vacated, where Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986), is overruled, because requiring an "initial invocation" of the right to counsel in order to trigger the Jackson presumption might work in states that require an indigent defendant formally to request counsel before an appointment is made, but not in more than half the states that appoint counsel without request from the defendant. Read more... Abuelhawa v. US, No. 08-192Drug distribution conviction is reversed and the case remanded, where Defendant's drug purchases from a third party over the phone constituted misdemeanors, because using a telephone to make a misdemeanor drug purchase does not "facilitate" felony drug distribution in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 843(b). Read more... | |||
| Monday, May 11, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Flores-Figueroa v. US, No. 08-108
Defendant's aggravated identity theft conviction is reversed where 18 U.S.C. section 1028A(a)(1) requires the government to show that a defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person. Read more... Kansas v. Ventris, No. 07-1356The state supreme court's reversal of defendant's burglary conviction is reversed where the state obtained a confession from a confidential informant but defendant's statement to the informant, concededly elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was admissible to impeach his inconsistent testimony at trial. Read more... | |||
| Tuesday, April 21, 2009 | | ||
| |||
| Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542
The Arizona Supreme Court's reversal of Defendant's drug conviction is affirmed, where police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that an arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Read more... | |||
| Monday, April 06, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Corley v. US, No. 07-10441
Defendant's bank robbery conviction is vacated, where the District Court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his confession under McNabb v. US, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. US, 354 U.S. 449 (1957), based on the government's delay in bringing him before a judge, where 18 U.S.C. section 3501 modified McNabb-Mallory but did not supplant it. Read more... Related Resources: Case Docket | |||
| Thursday, March 26, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Puckett v. US, No. 07-9712
The plain-error test of Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b), which instructs parties how to preserve claims of error, applies to a forfeited claim that the government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement, and applies in the usual fashion. Sentence for bank robbery is therefore affirmed. Read more... | |||
| Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Vermont v. Brillon, No. 08-88
The Vermont Supreme Court's reversal of Defendant's domestic violence conviction is reversed, where the Vermont Supreme Court held that delays attributable to Defendant's assigned counsel denied Defendant a speedy trial, but assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent. Read more... | |||
| Tuesday, February 24, 2009 | | ||
| |||
| US v. Hayes, No. 07-608
Defendants conviction for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 921 is affirmed, where a domestic relationship between the offender and victim need not be an element of the defendants misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to trigger Section 921s possession ban. Read more | |||
| Wednesday, January 21, 2009 | | ||
| |||
|
Supreme Court Opinions
Spears v. US, No. 08-5721
Waddington v. Sarausad, No. 07-772 | |||