Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/15] US v. W.R. Grace
A U.S, Attorney's simple certification under 18 U.S.C. section 3731, that the government's interlocutory appeal in a pending criminal case is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence the district court suppressed or excluded is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding, is sufficient to establish the circuit court's jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Prior decisions to the contrary are overruled. Also, the district court in the case at hand had the authority to order pretrial disclosure by the government of its final list of witnesses and evidentiary documents and to exclude witnesses and evidence not timely disclosed in compliance with such orders.

[05/15] US v. Cole
Conviction and sentence for drug-and-firearm related offenses is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in holding that defendant's possession of handguns was part of the same course of conduct as possessing an unregistered shotgun, and hence relevant conduct for the offense of conviction; 2) the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for possession of a stolen firearm; 3) a denial of a downward departure was unreviewable; 4) an evidentiary ruling was proper; 5) there was sufficient evidence supported the conviction; and 6) the sentence was reasonable.

[05/15] US v. Heikes
An enhanced sentence based on a finding that defendant was an armed career criminal is vacated and remanded where, under recent Supreme Court precedent, defendant's three DWI convictions did not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

[05/15] US v. Coleman
Conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine is affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; 2) the sentence was unreasonable; and 3) the district court failed to make specific perjury findings to support an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.

[05/14] Skinner v. Quarterman
An application for a certificate of appealability (COA) from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) a decision not to test DNA evidence from the crime scene did not rise to ineffective assistance of counsel since it was an informed, strategic decision; 2) failure to impeach a witness did not amount to a serious error ; 3) failure to present evidence that defendant was allergic to codeine caused no prejudice; 4) COA is granted as to an issue regarding the failure to obtain a blood spatter report; 5) COA is granted as to a claim of failure to present testimony of an additional witness.

[05/14] US v. Peralez
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a firearm, grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed and remanded where, even though the evidence was the fruit of an improperly extended traffic stop, the dog sniff which resulted in the seizure of evidence was not a result of that improper extension.

[05/14] People v. Johnson
In an appeal addressing constitutional issues concerning the Sexually Violent Predator Act, an order declaring defendant a sexually violent predator (SVP) is affirmed where: 1) defendant's claims of not being lawfully in custody at the time which the district attorney filed his SVP petition were unavailing; 2) neither the imposition of an indeterminate term of commitment, nor placing some burden on the SVP individual to petition for release, violated due process; 3) individuals found to be SPVs are not similarly situated to those committed by reason of mental disorder or insanity, and thus the same treatment is not required for purposes of equal protection analysis; and 4) the current version of the SVP Act is not punitive in nature, and thus, the principles of former jeopardy and ex post facto do not apply.

[05/14] Walker v. Sheahan
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challenged.

[05/14] Purtell v. Mason
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

[05/14] U.S. v. Black
In a prosecution for firearms possession and drug possession, defendant's sentence and a denial of his motion to suppress are affirmed where: 1) the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's encounter with police would give rise to reasonable suspicion to support a Terry stop and a subsequent pat down; and 2) there was no error in an upward departure from the recommended Guidelines sentence based on the substantial underrepresentation of the defendant's criminal history.

[05/14] Newland v. Hall
In a death penalty case, denial of habeas relief is affirmed where the state habeas court properly applied the relevant and controlling Supreme Court precedent in rejecting petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

[05/13] U.S. v. Hildenbrand
Defendants' guilty plea convictions for defrauding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are affirmed over claims of error regarding the sufficiency of the factual resumes submitted in support of defendants' guilty pleas.

[05/13] U.S. v. Pasillas-Castanon
A conviction for knowingly possessing a counterfeit green card is affirmed where: 1) the Speedy Trial Act generally does not apply to detentions based on civil deportation charges; and 2) the "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act did not apply in case at hand.

[05/13] U.S. v. Zamora-Solorzano
A sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine is affirmed over a claim that the district court erred under Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), in giving the Guidelines sentence "considerable weight."

More...