News and Resources

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/09] U.S. v. Day
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal forfeiture context.

[05/09] US v. Martinez
In a sentencing proceeding wherein the district court applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of proof to the facts supporting the enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed was reasonable; and 3) the doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not apply to invalidate the sentence imposed.

[05/09] US v. Regalado
Sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base is remanded where: 1) in light of the holding in Kimbrough, it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed a non-Guidelines sentence had it been aware of the Guidelines' advisory nature, and that it had the discretion to deviate from the Guidelines; and 2) the absence of that information precluded a review for plain error.

[05/08] U.S. v. Friday
In a prosecution against a member of a Native American tribe for shooting an eagle without a permit in contravention of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), dismissal of the indictment based on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge is reversed and remanded for trial where the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government's compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle.

[05/08] People v. Varghese
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.

[05/08] U.S. v. Brooks
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.

[05/08] US v. Desinor
In a prosecution of multiple defendants for various drug-related offenses, their convictions are affirmed where: 1) defendants were not entitled to a jury charge on self-defense; 2) there was no error in a jury charge regarding the nexus between the drug conspiracy and the murder of a rival gang member; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of that nexus beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the sentence of one co-defendant is partially vacated and remanded where the district court imposed a consecutive sentence on that defendant for discharging a firearm without making the requisite finding of discharge.

[05/08] Thompson v. Choinski
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.

[05/08] US v. Harris
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Sturgis
A final judgment and modified sentencing order which reduced defendant's minimum mandatory Level V sentence for attempted first-degree murder is reversed where defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of his statutorily mandated minimum Level V sentence could not be considered by the Superior Court, as it did not comport with the two conditions precedent required by Del. Code ann. Tit. 11, sections 4217(b) and 4217(f).

More...