Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/03] US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.

[07/03] US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.

[07/03] US v. Anderson
A conviction for insider trading and money laundering is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the government's evidence was insufficient to convict him, 2) the district court erred in failing to give his theory-of-the-case jury instruction; and 3) that he is entitled to a new trial. The sentence is affirmed over the government's claims of error that the sentence was unreasonable because the court erroneously excluded certain stock sales as relevant conduct when considering the U.S.S.G. for illegal insider training.

[07/03] US v. Feemster
A reduction of defendant's sentence to 120 months from 240 months for knowingly and intentionally distributing crack cocaine is reversed and remanded where the district court: 1) considered irrelevant factors; 2) failed to explain its unusually lenient sentence with sufficient justifications to support the degree of the variance; and 3) thus committed procedural error and abused its discretion.

[07/03] US v. Pearce
Convictions and sentences for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a denial of a motion to suppress evidence based on officers' lack of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop defendants; and 2) imposition of the 235 months sentence without addressing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

[07/03] Jacob v. West Bloomfield
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging a violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when defendant entered plaintiff's property without a warrant to inspect the property for criminal violations of a land use ordinance, denial of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the purpose of the government intrusion was not merely administrative but also bore the threat of criminal sanctions; and 2) the fact that plaintiff did not endure an even more intrusive search does not obviate the Fourth Amendment's requirement that, absent exigent circumstances, officials may not conduct criminal investigations within the curtilage of a person's home without a warrant.

[07/03] US v. Kimbrel
A conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm with obliterated serial numbers are vacated and the case remanded for a new trial where: 1) defendant's sufficiency challenge fails because defendant failed to move for an acquittal at the close of all the proof and a higher burden of proof applies; and 2) the district court conducted a flawed Batson analysis after defense counsel used a peremptory challenge to dismiss a Caucasian juror.

[07/02] US v. Smith
Sentence imposed for drug-related offenses is affirmed and found reasonable where the district court adequately considered a range of issues concerning whether defendant's previous criminal convictions constituted "crimes of violence" and properly considered mitigating factors in determining the applicable range.

[07/02] Leftwich v. Maloney
Judgment denying habeas relief is affirmed where there was sufficient evidence, for purposes of due process requirements, to ground a conviction for first-degree murder either as a principal or as a joint venturer.

[07/02] US v. Aref
In an appeal involving challenges to a denial of a third party's motion to intervene in a terrorism-related criminal case for purposes of asserting a First Amendment right to discovery of documents sealed by court order, the circuit court finds that: 1) pursuant to section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant classified evidence that is helpful to his defense, and such decision is within the district court's discretion and may be made without a defendant's or his lawyer's participation; 2) denials of motions to intervene in criminal cases are reviewed for abuse of discretion; 3) while district courts ordinarily should refrain from entirely (as opposed to selectively) sealing court orders and documents filed by the parties, there was no error in doing so under the circumstances of this case.

More...