Important Legal Info For Everyone At Pto

KConnor56 · #1 08-29-2002, 04:02 PM

OK EVERYONE, I get legal case law from The US Supreme Court, The District Courts, The Courts Of Appeals, State Superme Courts, State appealete courts, etc. These cases are very interesting & I use many of them in researching cases for some of you. So what I'm going to do is to start posting the cases here. If you want to look at the actual case, then either leave a post, or e-mail me with the date of my post & the names of the parties on the case, ie. Jones V Smith. I will then give you the link to the case. I'm doing this to see how many of you find this info usefull. If we get a good response, David has said we will create a forum for this, & I will then put the link with the case for easier access. Most of these cases being government documents are PDF files, if you can't read PDF files let me know & I'll get you the info on how to read them, it's free, & very easy. Each case will have the parties involved & a short story of what the case is about, & the case law it relates to. I will be making a post every Tuesday, & Thursday with new cases so keep checking back to this thread for new cases. Eventually one or more will pop up that may be of some help to you. Also feel free to check them out even if your just curriouse. Thats what I do, I just check out the ones that catch my eye. Please feel free to e-mail me at [email address removed per PTO Posting Guidelines] & I will gladly give you the link to the case. You will not be bothering, or pestering me. I'm doing this only to see if this is worth expanding.------Ken

KConnor56 · #2 08-29-2002, 04:31 PM

TURNER v. MILLER (08/21/02 - No. 01-3413)
Eighth Amendment claims for unsafe conditions of confinement at a correctional facility fail, where prison officials did not know of the presence of electrical wires in a shower, and had no information concerning any risk of harm.

CASE v. AHITOW (08/21/02 - No. 01-3564)
Failure of prison guards and officials to protect an inmate from an attack by another inmate could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, where defendants knew of, and could easily have averted, a danger to the plaintiff inmate's safety, yet failed to do so.

ESTATE OF JEFFREY FORD v. RAMIREZ-PALMER (08/23/02 - No. 01-15769)
Corrections officers are entitled to qualified immunity where it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer, knowing what each knew, that their conduct posed such a substantial risk of serious harm to an
inmate that it was unlawful under the Eighth Amendment.

SEARCY v. SIMMONS (08/19/02 - No. 00-3161)
A corrections department's Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) does
not violate an inmate's Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination, and the SATP's admission of responsibility
requirement does not violate the right to free exercise of religion.

PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ (08/19/02 - No. H022692)
The "gang registration" law (Penal Code sections 186.30 and 186.32) 1) is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, 2) does not amount to an unreasonable search and seizure or infringe upon the right to remain silent, 3) does not implicate the right to counsel, and 4) does not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

US v. MELENDEZ (08/23/02 - No. 01-1733 )
An objectively reasonable person would believe that defendant's mother consented to a search of his bedroom, and that a search of a stereo speaker was within the scope of that consent.

US v. JACKSON (08/22/02 - No. 01-1049)
Because escape amounts to a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. section 924(e), the district court properly sentenced defendant as an armed career criminal.

US v. CICIRELLO (08/21/02 - No. 01-3682)
A sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(b)(5) was improper where no evidence existed as to the circumstances of defendant's sale of firearms, let alone any evidence of his knowledge as to intended use of the firearms.

US v. CARRINGTON (08/22/02 - No. 99-4537)
Though a sentence based on 1) an indictment that failed to specify drug quantity and 2) absence of a jury finding as to quantity, was plain error under Apprendi, sentence is affirmed where evidence of drug quantity justifying the sentence was overwhelming and uncontroverted.

WHITTLESEY v. CONROY (08/23/02 - No. 01-6158)
A Maryland court's determination, that a murder prosecution did not violate double jeopardy after prosecutions for robbery and assault with intent to rob, was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law.

US v. BROWN (08/23/02 - No. 01-30173)
Convictions for making false statements to the FBI are affirmed where any error that the district court may have committed, including
concerning disclosure of FBI interview notes, was harmless.

US v. ORSOLINI (08/20/02 - No. 01-5508)
An examination of the combined impact of all relevant circumstances, including factual inferences drawn by police officers, supported a finding of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

HOLLEMAN v. COTTON (08/19/02 - No. 00-3791)
A second habeas petition is dismissed where petitioner could not show cause for failure to raise a claim of ineffective assistance in the first petition, because he never made an inquiry into a conflict claim.

US v. ROLLINS (08/19/02 - No. 01-3921)
Joinder of bank robbery counts did not deprive defendant of a fair trial where all evidence related to separate robberies would have been admissible as "other crimes."

DELLINGER v. BOWEN (08/19/02 - No. 01-2617)
A habeas petitioner's ineffective assistance claim is defaulted where he could not show 1) cause for failure to raise it during
post-conviction relief proceedings in state court, or 2) "actual
innocence."

US v. NOBLE (08/20/02 - No. 01-4287)
No Apprendi violation occurred where a combined consecutive sentence did not exceed the combined maximum for the two counts, but reliable evidence did not support attribution of a portion of drug quantity to defendant.

US v. PARTEE (08/21/02 - No. 01-3439)
Testimony of defendant's associates established a drug quantity attributable to defendant to support an offense level for sentencing, and an obstruction of justice enhancement was proper based on defendant's false statement to a probation officer.

US v. GELINAS (08/20/02 - No. 01-2704)
Imposition of a three-level sentence enhancement was not erroneous, where defendant's supervisory role in a drug conspiracy was not limited to recruiting efforts.

US v. TITLBACH (08/22/02 - No. 01-2761)
A drug conspiracy sentence did not violate Apprendi where the sentence imposed was less than statutory maximum, the drug quantity calculation was not clearly erroneous, and an obstruction of justice enhancement was supported be evidence.

US v. HERNANDEZ (08/22/02 - No. 02-1162)
Evidence established that defendant acted as an intermediary in a drug operation to support a conspiracy conviction, and a motion for bill of particulars was properly denied where he did not show surprise or prejudice.

US v. ROBINSON (08/23/02 - No. 01-3038)
Denial of a 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion is proper where defendant did not show prejudice in numerous ineffective assistance of counsel allegations.

US v. STALLINGS (08/23/02 - No. 01-3800)
A sentence of life imprisonment under a sentence enhancement is reversed where the court relied on a state conviction that was never entered as a judgment.

US v. CULPS (08/19/02 - No. 00-30169)
The approximation of an amount of marijuana sold under the "multiplier" method, was insufficiently reliable to support a sentence where the average transaction size and days of operation used were clearly erroneous.

US v. LAWRENCE (08/22/02 - No. 01-50229)
The requirement that defendant register as a narcotics offender, using a state statute as a reference, was within the terms of his sentence and did not violate his constitutional rights.

HAMM v. SAFFLE (08/21/02 - No. 02-6026)
A 28 U.S.C. section 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
procedurally barred where petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies, and did not demonstrate actual innocence.

US v. NEFF (08/22/02 - No. 01-4184)
Handcuffing of defendant during an investigative detention was reasonable where police officers had received a reliable report that he was armed with a particularly dangerous weapon, and the officers had a sound basis for taking stringent precautions until they recovered it.

US v. ALLEN (08/22/02 - No. 00-10108)
Sentencing error occurs where the government alleges a conspiracy of multiple controlled substances (here, cocaine and marijuana), there is no special verdict as to either substance, and the maximum sentences for
an unspecified amount of each substance differ.

PEOPLE v. SANCHEZ (08/19/02 - No. H022692)
The "gang registration" law (Penal Code sections 186.30 and 186.32) 1) is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, 2) does not amount to an unreasonable search and seizure or infringe upon the right to remain silent, 3) does not implicate the right to counsel, and 4) does not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

PEOPLE v. MAR (08/22/02 - No. S086611)
Principles set forth in People v. Duran, 16 Cal.3d 282, as to physical restraints, apply to a requirement that defendant wear a "stun belt" at trial, and a requirement that defendant wear such a device while testifying on his own behalf was prejudicial error.

PEOPLE v. HURTADO (08/22/02 - No. S082112)
Before committing or recommitting a defendant under the Sexually Violent Predators Act, a finding must be made beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is likely to commit sexually violent "predatory" behavior upon release, under Welfare & Institutions Code section 6600(e).

PEOPLE v. GARCIA (08/22/02 - No. S097765)
A firearm sentencing enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53(d) can apply to an aider and abettor under a vicarious liability theory,even where the "shooter" is not convicted.

Joy · #3 08-29-2002, 11:13 PM

I think this is a wonderful idea Ken. You are doing a great job here.

Joy

vnvdvc · #4 08-30-2002, 09:18 AM

Ken, thank you so much for working so hard to help others!
If only guys like you came in pocket-size versions...

KConnor56 · #5 08-30-2002, 09:56 AM

Here are some different kinds of cases & some cases in the news, some of you may find interesting, just drop me a line & I'll give you the link to the case.

UNITED STATES v. NANCY KELLER (August 26, 2002)
Federal Charges Against The Airline Passenger Who Carried A
Loaded .357 Semi-Automatic Gun On To A Plane That Airport
Security Screeners Failed To Detect [PDF]

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS (August 2002) Guidelines From The White House Office Of National Drug Control Policy Urging That Students Found Using Drugs Be Given Treatment And Counseling, Instead Of Just Being Suspended Or Expelled, To Avoid The Growth Of "Drug-Using Dropouts, An Even Bigger Problem." [PDF]

BARRY BONDS' 600TH HOME RUN BALL SUBJECT OF LAWSUIT
Associated Press
First it was No. 73. Now it's No. 600. Barry Bonds' historic home runs keep ending up in court Last October, it was a tussle over Bonds' record-setting 73rd home run of the season - one man got a glove on it, but another took it home. This time, it's a guy who got a ticket to the game after allegedly promising fellow workers to split any profits if he caught Bonds' 600th career home run ball. Three former friends are suing Jay Arsenault, a 36-year-old carpenter from Vacaville, who caught the ball on Aug. 9, in the bleachers of Pacific Bell Park. They claim he reneged on a promise to share the wealth.
Read The Complaint (Fisher, et al. v. Arsenault) [PDF
Read The Temporary Restraining Order (Fisher, et al. v. Arsenault)

RUSSIAN INDICTED IN OLYMPIC SCHEME
Reuters
A U.S. grand jury indicted a reputed Russian mobster on Wednesday for allegedly fixing 2002 Winter Olympic figure skating competitions in a move that paves the way for the U.S. government to seek his extradition from Italy. The Manhattan U.S. attorney's office said it will file papers with Italy in September seeking custody of Alimzhan
Tokhtakhounov, who was arrested by Italian authorities in July on a complaint filed by New York prosecutors. The five-count indictment expanded charges contained in the earlier complaint and allowed for a trial in the United States

WILLIAMS CO-DEFENDANT PLEADS GUILTY
Associated Press
A second man pleaded guilty Thursday to helping cover up Jayson Williams' role in a Valentine's Day shooting death and will testify against the former NBA star. In a deal with prosecutors, John W. Gordnick, 44, pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence and will avoid jail time.
Read The Original Indictment (State of New Jersey v. Jayson S. Williams and John W. Gordnick)

FORMER NBA PLAYER PLEADS GUILTY TO KIDNAPPING
Former NBA forward Sylvester "Sly" Williams pleaded guilty Aug. 19 to kidnapping charges just before jury selection was to begin for his trial. Williams, 44, was charged with first-degree rape, sodomy and first-degree kidnapping for allegedly holding a woman captive for about 24 hours and threatening her with a knife in September 2001. He was
also accused of raping a second woman in January. The two cases were consolidated.

DONAHUE LOSES RULING ON RERUNS
Associated Press
Phil Donahue doesn't get first dibs when it comes to buying the rights to reruns of his former show A judge ruled against the talk show host last week, saying Donahue lost the right to be first to buy when his contract with the owners of the show expired in 1996

PUBLICIST PLEADS GUILTY IN CAR CRASH
Associated Press
Lizzie Grubman, a New York publicist with a star-studded roster of clients, pleaded guilty Friday in a hit-and-run crash that injured 16 people outside a Hamptons nightclub. The judge indicated that Grubman, 31, will receive two months in jail, 280 hours of community service and five years' probation. Grubman, who pleaded guilty to third-degree
assault and leaving the scene of an accident, had faced a maximum sentence of seven years behind bars if convicted of all 26 charges in the original indictment. . . The bouncer, Scott Conlon, claimed Grubman called him "white trash" before slamming her SUV into reverse and driving into the crowd.
Read A Club Bouncer's Civil Suit Filed Against Grubman [PDF]

UNITED STATES v. EARNEST JAMES UJAAMA. (Aug. 28, 2002) Federal Grand Jury Indictment Charging An American From Seattle With Conspiring To "Provide Material Support And Resources To al Qaeda, Including Bringing Computer Equipment To al Qaeda terrorist training Camps, And With Firearms Charges. [PDF]

UNITED STATES v. SCOTT D. SULLIVAN and BUFORD YATES, JR.(Aug. 28, 2002) Federal Grand Jury Indictment Of WorldCom's Former CFO And The Telecom Company's Former Director General Of Accounting On Various Securities Fraud Charges [PDF]

VADIM LEVIN and ALEX SHEYNGIS v. GENERAL MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Aug. 26, 2002) Class Action Lawsuit By Penthouse Magazine Readers Alleging That They Were Duped Into Buying Issues Of The Magazine That Did Not
Have Nude Copies Of Tennis Star, And Asserting Claims For
Breach Of Contract, Consumer Fraud, And Breach Of Express
Warranty [PDF]

UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI (August 23, 2002)
Court Order Denying Defendant's Motions For Access To Classified Discovery Materials, Concluding That "The United States' Interest In Protecting Its National Security Information Outweighs The Defendant's Desire To Review The Classified Discovery." [PDF]

IN RE: FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT (May 17, 2002) Newly Released Memorandum Opinion And Orders Concluding That The Dept. Of Justice Misled The Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court In At Least 75 Top-Secret Warrant Requests That Sought To Conduct Electronic Surveillance [PDF]

KConnor56 · #6 08-30-2002, 10:11 AM

OK, back to the serious stuff.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (BRANDON), No S093628 (Cal. August 26, 2002) Evidence Code section 1045(b)(1)'s five-year limitation on court-ordered discovery of citizen complaints against police officers does not, on its face, violate the due process of defendant, charged with sexually molesting a minor.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS
IN RE ANDREWS, No S017657 (Cal. August 26, 2002)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the order to show cause is discharged, where plaintiff, convicted of multiple drug-related murders, received adequate assistance of counsel.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING, HABEAS CORPUS
HAYES v. WOODFORD, No. 99-99030 (9th Cir. August 26, 2002) The failure to investigate and present as mitigating evidence the defendant's mental health, family history, and chemical dependency, was not unreasonable and did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. ALARCON-SIMI, No. 01-30281 (9th Cir. August 27, 2002) An exculpatory post-arrest statement, relating to earlier events, was not admissible as an excited utterance under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2). Fact that one juror's response was not audible to a transcriber does not demonstrate that jury verdict lacked unanimity

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS
KELLY v. SMALL, No. 99-56673 (9th Cir. August 27, 2002)
A habeas petitioner did file a "mixed" petition before the district court, although only two of his claims were unexhausted, thus on remand the court must offer petitioner the opportunity to dismiss those two claims and proceed on the merits of the others.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
BEATY v. STEWART , No. 00-99007 (9th Cir. August 27, 2002)
A capital appeal is remanded for an evidentiary hearing as to whether a confession obtained by a jail psychiatrist was voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, based on petitioner's claimed reasonable belief that statements were protected by the state's confidentiality agreement.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
US v. JIMENEZ, No. 01-50597 (9th Cir. August 27, 2002)
Evidence did not show that a drug defendant brought her son along to use as a decoy, thus a sentence enhancement for use of a minor in the commission of a crime was clearly erroneous. Obstruction of justice enhancement was improper absent a showing that false testimony was material.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
US v. ELDER, No. 00-10143 (9th Cir. June 07, 2002)
Defendant's due process rights were not violated when lead defense counsel was removed from the courtroom after being warned about yelling at the court and making sarcastic remarks. (Amended opinion)

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS
US v. MONREAL, No. 01-50203 (9th Cir. August 28, 2002)
A motion to enforce an oral plea agreement was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, to the extent it challenged a conviction in a district court in California, whether construed as an untimely 28 U.S.C. section 2255 petition or a writ of error coram nobis.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, SENTENCING
US v. GAMEZ, No. 00-10307 (9th Cir. August 29, 2002) The murder cross-reference of U.S.S.G. section 2D1.1(d)(1) can apply to enhance a sentence for drug-related conspiracy when the murder was both foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy, although defendant was acquitted of murder and the sentencing court specifically found that he did not commit murder.

Rosebud · #7 08-30-2002, 11:40 PM

This is wonderful...thank you for the time and research involved. Anything your can find on the Alfred plea would be wonderful.

Hugs...and God Bless,

Adelle

KConnor56 · #8 08-31-2002, 01:56 AM

What is the Alfred plea?

KConnor56 · #9 09-03-2002, 10:58 AM

Sept 3, 2002 entries.

Constitutional Case Law

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. REA (08/26/02 - No. 01-2177)
Following conditional guilty plea and appeal remanding case to district court, subsequent district court proceeding is not double jeopardy because proceeding was continuation of jeopardy. Church annex damaged by defendant was actively employed for commercial purpose, but there was
insufficient evidence to conclude the annex was used directly in the stream of interstate commerce or in any activity affecting interstate commerce, as required under 18 U.S.C. section 844(i).

RAHMAN X v. MORGAN (08/27/02 - No. 01-2961)
Prison officials had a rational reason for housing a prisoner in a more secure cell, and officials' action in doing so (and the confinement itself) did not violate his equal protection or due process rights.

US v. KOONS (08/29/02 - No. 01-3177)
Police officers acted in objective good faith under Leon in executing a search, based on a review of the totality of the circumstances. 21 U.S.C. section 860(a), increasing the penalty for drug trafficking near a school or playground, is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SAMMARTANO v. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF CARSON CITY
(08/26/02 - No. 01-16685)
Where plaintiffs, who were denied access to a government building after refusing to remove clothing bearing symbols of motorcycle organizations, demonstrated both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction in their action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 was
improperly denied.

Criminal procedure case law

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. ACOSTA (08/30/02 - No. 01-2224)
Calculation of an offense level, by including credit card charges that the government did not prove defendant personally made, was not error. District court was not barred from using suppressed evidence in calculating restitution as part of defendant's sentence.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. REYES (08/26/02 - No. 01-1258)
Where evidence was sufficient that a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant intentionally joined a conspiracy to transport stolen airbags, and that he either knew the airbags were stolen or consciously avoided confirming that fact, case remanded for reinstatement of the jury's verdict.

US v. RICHARDS (08/27/02 - No. 01-1144/1314/1315)
Convictions and sentences are affirmed where 1) an offense alleged in an indictment was the same as that for which defendant was convicted, 2) evidence established aiding and abetting possession, 3) attribution of drug quantity was correct, and 4) conspiracy evidence was sufficient.

RYAN v. MILLER (08/28/02 - No. 01-2122)
A police officers' testimony was hearsay containing an implicit
accusation against petitioner, in violation of the Confrontation
Clause, and a state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in denying petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim.

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. JOHNSON (08/26/02 - No. 00-2165 / 01-2529)
The district court's finding, that a due process violation occurred when the prosecutor asked a question that implicated defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence, was erroneous under Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987).

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. REEDY (08/26/02 - No. 01-11042)
The rule of lenity requires sentencing for child pornography under 18 U.S.C. section 2252 based on the number of websites as the relevant "unit of prosecution," rather than on the number of individual images

This case will be appealed as I believe it's a bad decision, based on previous Aprendi rullings.----Ken
US v. RANDLE (08/26/02 - No. 97-20360)
Although an indictment failed to allege drug quantity, and a resulting sentence exceeded the "core" maximum, resentencing is not necessary under a plain error standard where overwhelming evidence linked defendant and co-conspirators to large quantities of crack cocaine.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HUTCHISON v. BELL (08/29/02 - No. 01-5214)
A capital defendant's claim that the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, is unavailing because it has been procedurally defaulted and because he cannot demonstrate cause or prejudice for the default

US v. TRUMAN (08/29/02 - No. 01-5072)
When a defendant moves for a downward departure based on cooperation which does not involve the investigation or prosecution of another person, U.S.S.G. section 5K1.1 does not apply and the sentencing court is not precluded from considering the defendant's arguments solely because the government has not made a motion to depart.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. CEBALLOS (08/27/02 - No. 01-3715/6/7/8, 01-4007/8/4021/4095)
The government is not required to prove that defendants intended to use a minor to shield themselves from prosecution in order to impose a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 3B1.4. Multiple appeals from drug conspiracy and money laundering convictions rejected.

US v. KNOX (08/28/02 - No. 01-3000)
Admission of evidence of nine "bad acts" (prior drug transactions) under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) was proper to prove knowledge of possession and intent to distribute crack cocaine.

US v. MANSOORI (08/29/02 - No. 99-1492/3533/3569/3570/3623)
Drug convictions are affirmed, but 1) sentence is remanded for determination whether alleged diminished mental capacity calls for a downward sentence departure, and 2) a restitution order under 18 U.S.C. section 3663(c) was plain error where payment of a fine was not ordered.

WILLIAMS v. DAVIS (08/29/02 - No. 01-4225)
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails where facts which petitioner argues competent counsel would have presented at trial were in fact known by the jury when it recommended the death penalty, and petitioner would have been sentenced to death absent blood evidence.

COLLIER v. DAVIS (08/29/02 - No. 01-1742)
State's alleged failure to disclose an understanding or informal agreement of leniency in exchange for a key witness's testimony was not shown to have violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

RAMOS v. WEBER (08/27/02 - No. 01-4023)
Trial counsel's failure to request a psychological assessment of defendant's rehabilitation potential during state court sentencing proceedings was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Life sentence for first-degree manslaughter did not violate Eighth Amendment

US v. ALCARAS-NAVARRO (08/28/02 - No. 01-3789/3819)
Defendants' prior convictions were aggravated felonies under U.S.S.G. sections 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)-(C), and the district court did not err in imposing sixteen-level enhancements in sentencing defendants for illegally reentering the U.S. following deportation for a felony.

US v. ESPINOSA (08/29/02 - No. 01-3397)
Evidence supported a conviction for carrying a weapon in relation to a drug trafficking crime, and the district court did not err in denying a motion for continuance made less than a week before trial.

US v. REPLOGLE (08/30/02 - No. 02-1412)
A warrantless search pursuant to a state order of probation was reasonable, even when defendant refused consent.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HAYES v. WOODFORD (08/26/02 - No. 99-99030)
The failure to investigate and present as mitigating evidence the defendant's mental health, family history, and chemical dependency, was not unreasonable and did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel.

US v. ALARCON-SIMI (08/27/02 - No. 01-30281)
An exculpatory post-arrest statement, relating to earlier events, was not admissible as an excited utterance under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2). Fact that one juror's response was not audible to a transcriber does not demonstrate that jury verdict lacked unanimity.

BEATY v. STEWART (08/27/02 - No. 00-99007)
A capital appeal is remanded for an evidentiary hearing as to whether a confession obtained by a jail psychiatrist was voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, based on petitioner's claimed reasonable belief that statements were protected by the state's confidentiality agreement

KELLY v. SMALL (08/27/02 - No. 99-56673)
A habeas petitioner did file a "mixed" petition before the district court, although only two of his claims were unexhausted, thus on remand the court must offer petitioner the opportunity to dismiss those two claims and proceed on the merits of the others.

US v. JIMENEZ (08/27/02 - No. 01-50597)
Evidence did not show that a drug defendant brought her son along to use as a decoy, thus a sentence enhancement for use of a minor in the commission of a crime was clearly erroneous. Obstruction of justice enhancement was improper absent a showing that false testimony was material.

US v. GAMEZ (08/29/02 - No. 00-10307)
The murder cross-reference of U.S.S.G. section 2D1.1(d)(1) can apply to enhance a sentence for drug-related conspiracy when the murder was both foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy, although defendant was acquitted of murder and the sentencing court specifically found that he did not commit murder.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT v. MULLIN (08/26/02 - No. 00-7103, 00-7106)
Where defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, the grant of habeas relief is affirmed on the ground that the prosecution suppressed material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

POWELL v. RAY (08/28/02 - No. 01-7125)
Denial of a habeas petition is proper where petitioner failed to show that the elimination of a pre-parole supervised release program created more than a speculative risk that his prison term would be increased, and his ex post facto claim must fail.

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. PROUTY (08/27/02 - No. 01-15273)
Denial of the right of allocution is reversible error where the court did not impose the lowest sentence under the guidelines. Court may not delegate the judicial function of setting a schedule for a prisoner to pay restitution or fines under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

California Appellate Districts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MILLER v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (PEOPLE) (08/28/02 - No. G029632) Denial of a motion to dismiss a third indictment was proper under Penal Code section 1387, permitting a third filing where 1) prior dismissal
was due to excusable neglect and 2) prosecutorial conduct did not amount to bad faith.

Supreme Court of California

IN RE ANDREWS (08/26/02 - No. S017657)
Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and the order to show cause is discharged, where plaintiff, convicted of multiple
drug-related murders, received adequate assistance of counsel.

Supreme Court of Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL v. STATE OF TEXAS (08/29/02 - No. 01-1185)
Medical certificates described in the Mental Health Code were not a prerequisite to a trial court hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 46.03 section 4(d)(5), to determine whether defendant should be released from his commitment.

Menally-Ill · #10 09-03-2002, 01:41 PM

Holy hunkydoodleo, Ken.

Forget writing a book. You should go into LAW!

Funny you should post all this.

TODAY I need a LABOUR LAWYER with experience in Canada, in Worker's Safety and Employment Legislation.

But you undoubtedly can't help... But it sure FEELS like if you could help, you'd be GREAT!

Dang.

Love,
Menolly

Budwoman · #11 09-03-2002, 02:08 PM

ken

I AGREE WITH MENOLLY.... YOU NEED TO PURSUE A LAW DEGREE AND DO A REAL DEFENSE OF PERSONS WHO NEED A REAL LAWYER...

YOU HAVE SPENT HOURS RESEARCHING THESE CASES... GOOD JOB KEN..

DONNA

B-Ray · #12 09-03-2002, 02:41 PM

Degree or not, I can't see where anyone wouldn't want you on there case!

You sure do have a craving for such knowelege.

I hope you have a backup system, for your law research? If not, PM or email me and we can talk about it.

Cameo · #13 09-05-2002, 03:53 PM

My you've been busy Ken...Awesome job and great resources, I can't wait to take some time and look at a few of these.

I have one for you...How about Crane v. Kansas...it was decided in Feb of 2002. I don't have the decision no. with me, but I did a brief for one of my classes and I actually had a discussion about civil commitment laws and rights with our State Chief of Public Defender. He was the public defender for the 'woodchipper murderer' here in Connecticut...but thats another story. Although we don't have a sexual offender committment law here, he is afraid that it will not be to far off in the future.

Anyway, it's an interesting case.

Keep up this much needed work, you are awesome at it!

KConnor56 · #14 09-05-2002, 04:05 PM

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. ALBRECHT STROMEYER (Sept. 1, 2002) Criminal Charges Against The Man Charged With Stalking Tennis Star Serena Williams At The U.S. Open

ONE YEAR LATER -- THE FISCAL IMPACT OF 9/11 (Sep. 4, 2002) Report From New York City's Comptroller On How September 11th Affected The City's Economy

IN RE: MILTON HERSHEY TRUST (Sept. 4, 2002)
Court Decree Barring The Sale Of The Well-Known Chocolate Company Pending Resolution Of The Litigation

UNITED STATES v. ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI Court Order Concluding That Accused Sept. 11th Conspirator Is Trying To Use The Court As A Vehicle For Rhetoric And Polemics
In Order To Send Messages To Co-consiprators Or Sympathizers And Evade Special Administrative Measures That The Federal Bureau Of Prisons Previously Placed Upon Him (Aug. 29, 2002

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH P. KIRKNER, IV (Aug. 29, 2002) A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion That Reverses A Lower Court Ruling That Would Have Permitted A Trial Judge To Avoid Testifying
Against Her Husband Who Was Charged With Spousal Abuse

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS

CAMPBELL v. RICE, No. 99-17311 (9th Cir. September 04, 2002) A habeas petitioner's due process rights were violated when he was excluded from an in-chambers hearing on defense counsel's potential conflict of interest, and such violation was a structural error which was prejudicial per se

US v. LARSON, No. 00-10609 (9th Cir. September 04, 2002) Defendant's having entered into a stipulation, admitting all elements of the crimes charged, moots a challenge to a suppression ruling only if the stipulation was entered into voluntarily, and with knowledge of the consequences to any appeal.

PEOPLE v. TROTTER, No. B149459 (Cal. 2d App. Dist. September 04, 2002) The improper discharge of one juror for allegedly failing to deliberate did not discharge the jury as a whole prior to verdict, and thus does not implicate double jeopardy principles where the substituted juror is a duly sworn alternate selected with the other jurors before trial.

Goody's Girl · #15 09-05-2002, 07:08 PM

Ken, can you help me find out what, if any cases have been taken to the Florida Supreme court challenging the Jimmy Ryce Act??? I saw something about something like this in one of the earlier posts in this thread, but I really need something definite.

thanks