Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/03] US v. Blitch
Convictions of defendants for conspiring to distribute 15 kilograms of cocaine are vacated and remanded as the court's failure to individually voir dire the second panel regarding its safety concerns, and her instructions to keep deliberating after the jury poll, when the jury had specifically requested to leave for the day, leads to the conclusion that the defendants should receive a new trial.

[09/03] Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.

[09/03] Socha v. Pollard
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, in concluding that another district judge's order extending the limitations period was an impermissible advisory opinion and thus of no effect because the court issued the order before defendant had filed his petition, is vacated and remanded where: 1) an order accepting a filing after the limitations period has run is not beyond the power of the district court, and it is effective if it can meet the standards for equitable tolling that the Supreme Court described in Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); and 2) the district court erred by focusing too closely on the fact that defendant had not already filed something that he had labeled as his petition as, not only does the motion anticipate an imminent action in which defendant and the state will be adverse, but also the parties have opposing interests on the immediate question of whether to toll the statute of limitations.

[09/03] US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.

[09/03] McCormick v. Adams
A denial of a petition for habeas relief brought by a prisoner who waived his right to counsel and represented himself at trial and now claimed the waiver was not knowing and voluntary is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the trial court led him to believe he could revoke his Faretta waiver at any time, and that he relied on this promise in waiving his right to counsel; and 2) he made a mid-trial request for counsel that was wrongly denied by the trial court.

[09/03] US v. Epstein
Prior terms of imprisonment for violations of supervised release do not limit the maximum sentence a district court may impose for a subsequent violation of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. section 3583(e)(3), as amended by the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act).

[09/03] US v. McGilberry
District court's conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) government proved a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; and 3) the court did not err by permitting the government to introduce subsequent propensity evidence under Federal Rule Evidence 404(b).

[09/03] US v. Talamantes
In a prosecution of defendant for unlawful reentry after removal following an aggravated felony conviction, district court's imposition of a sentence of 77 months' imprisonment is affirmed as the sentence was not unreasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an increase under Guidelines section 2L1.2(b)(A).

[09/03] Stock v. Rednour
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his first degree murder conviction of his girlfriend is affirmed as the Illinois court reviewing defendant's conviction did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, because the testimony he intended to elicit from a key witness was inconclusive for the purpose of impeachment.

[09/03] US v. Gonzales

[09/03] US v. Bautista-Montelongo
A sentence for a drug related offense is affirmed where the district court properly applied a two-level offense enhancement for defendant's acting as the captain or the pilot of a boat that was carrying a controlled substance as no special skills are required for application of the enhancement, and defendant's driving a boat containing contraband was enough.

[09/03] US v. Yancey
Conviction of defendant for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana is affirmed as Congress acted within constitutional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.

[09/03] Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.

[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.

Back to Main