Legal News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/02] US v. Beale
Defendants' convictions for conspiracy to prevent by intimidation a judicial officer from discharging her official duties, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of conspiracy to prevent by force, intimidation or threat, an officer of the U.S. from discharging her duties; 2) the First Amendment did not bar defendants' convictions because the conduct underlying the convictions was an unprotected true threat; and 3) the jury was advised more than once about the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

[09/02] US v. Holmes
Defendant's convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for possessing with intent to distribute in excess of five grams of crack cocaine, are affirmed in part where the evidence was sufficient to overcome a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support defendant's conviction on the felon-in-possession charge. However, the convictions are reversed in part where neither defendant nor his attorney on his behalf made a clear and intentional waiver of defendant's rights to confrontation that would allow the full extent of the confidential informant's statements read by an officer.

[09/02] US v. Rea
District court's conviction of defendants for conspiracy to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine and other related offenses, and their sentences are affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) because the government concedes defendant's argument, that the conspiracy alleged in his indictment is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) and that, along with a special assessment for each, his concurrent sentences thus amount to cumulative punishment not authorized by Congress, defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiracy are vacated; 2) the evidence presented against defendant was sufficient to justify his continuing criminal enterprise conviction; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements made by defendant's co-conspirators and any error related to an agent's testimony was harmless; 4) district court did not plainly err by imposing the firearm sentencing enhancement upon the defendant as the government demonstrated that the guns were found in close proximity to drug paraphernalia and that defendant dealt in large quantities of meth on a frequent basis; 5) sufficient evidence supported co-defendant's conviction for conspiracy as based on the evidence, any reasonable juror could find that the relationship between the defendants exceeded that of a buyer-seller relationship; and 6) district court's calculation errors did not affect co-defendant's substantial rights.

[09/02] US v. Ritchie Special Cred. Invs., Ltd.
In intervenor's application to intervene in an adversary proceeding initiated by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1345 against the alleged author of a Ponzi scheme, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the litigation progressed substantially between the initiation of these proceedings and intervenor's second motion to intervene; and 2) intervenor had knowledge of all the facts surrounding the district court's injunction, and failed to take issue with it when first presented with an opportunity to do so.

[09/02] US v. Slaight
Conviction of a defendant for receipt and possession of child pornography shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years by reason of a previous conviction for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, is reversed as, defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements that he had made when questioned by federal officers at a police station should have been granted as facts are incontrovertible and show that the average person in defendant's position would have thought himself in custody, and any other conclusion would leave Miranda in tatters.

[09/02] US v. Hernandez
In a conviction of defendant for distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base, district court's imposition of a 120-month sentence, in believing that it was required by U.S.S.G. section 5G1.3(c) to impose the sentence as part of the federal sentence, because defendant's state offense (for which defendant had already served 18 months of at the time of his federal sentencing) was unrelated to his federal offense, is vacated and remanded as, section 5G1.3(b) does not apply to this case as the governing statute for these purposes is 18 U.S.C. section 3584(a) which gives a district court the discretion to impose a term of imprisonment either concurrently or consecutively to a prior undischarged term, taking into consideration the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

[09/02] Goldhamer v. Nagode
In plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging violations of their rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and under state law, challenging a city ordinance's failure-to-disperse provision of section 8-4-010(d), district court's judgment permanently enjoining the city from enforcing the provision on the ground that it imposes too great a burden on protected free speech and is unconstitutionally vague is vacated and remanded as, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the facial validity of the ordinance at issue as they were not even arguably violating the failure-to-disperse provision when they were arrested for demonstrating against military recruitment, and plaintiffs have not shown a reasonable prospect of future arrest for again violating that same provision.

[09/02] US v. Gentles
Conviction of defendant for distributing crack cocaine and sentenced to 64-months' imprisonment, followed by four years' supervised release, with a special condition of substance abuse treatment counseling, are affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial as although prosecutorial misconduct occurred, there is no evidence that it prejudiced the outcome of defendant's trial; 2) defendant's claim that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the government's witness is rejected; 3) the probative value of defendant's prior drug transactions with the government witnesses, which demonstrated their prior familiarity with defendant, was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; and 4) defendant's sentence was not unreasonable as the district court was well within its discretion to sentence defendant to 64 months' imprisonment.

[09/02] US v. Ellis
District court's decision to sentence the defendant under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on defendant's three previous convictions for a violent felony, including a previous juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, is affirmed as, it was not blatant error for the sentencing court to take defendant's juvenile adjudication into consideration for the purpose of applying the ACCA, as given that the state law provides that juvenile adjudications are not "set aside' for the purpose of imposing sentence is later criminal proceedings against the defendant, it is far from clear that Massachusetts juvenile convictions should never be treated as predicate offense under the ACCA.

[09/02] Wall v. US
In petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. section 2255 habeas petition challenging his child pornography conviction, the motion is denied where the claims in petitioner's first section 2255 petition were, in substance, incorporated into his subsequent direct appeal, and thus his proposed section 2255 petition was not "second or successive."

[09/02] US v. Taylor
In a conviction of defendant for armed bank robbery, district court's imposition of an enhancement for physically restraining a teller in sentencing defendant to 110-months' imprisonment is affirmed as, whether a pointed gun is used to move a person into an unlocked room and keep him there, or used to move a person from one part of the robbery scene to another, the person's freedom of movement is restrained as effectively as by shoving or dragging him into a room and locking the door. However, the judgment is modified as the district court erred in ordering the defendant to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, as the participation is voluntary.

More...