Jump to Navigation

Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/03] US v. Culbertson
In a prosecution in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, where: 1) there was an inadequate factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea with respect to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible; and 2) the district court's error in accepting the defendant's plea was not harmless.

[02/03] US v. Leahy
In a sentencing challenge brought by a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court's 10-year sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's application of enhancements under the sentencing guidelines and its inclusion of criminal history points was procedurally reasonable; and 2) the sentence, although the maximum possible, was substantively reasonable, as the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

Read More

Evidence

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] People v. Brents
In a prosecution for first-degree murder and other crimes which resulted in a conviction and death sentence, the judgment is reversed as to the sentence of death, and the jury's true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation is stricken, where the jury was not properly instructed regarding the need to find an independent felonious purpose to kidnap the victim, but the convictions are otherwise upheld where: 1) hearsay statements were admissible under Evidence Code section 791(b) as prior consistent statements; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; 3) the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654's prohibition against multiple sentences for a single act or course of conduct by imposing a death sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the felony assault conviction; and 4) the trial court did not make multiple errors, so that the defendant's claim of cumulative prejudice necessarily failed.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

Read More

Judges & Judiciary

[02/02] Gallop v. Cheney
On an order to show cause why an attorney should not be separately sanctioned for his self-proclaimed lead role in drafting a frivolous and vexatious motion to disqualify a Second Circuit panel from considering his client's petition for panel rehearing of a case alleging that the defendants, former senior government officials, caused the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States: 1) sanctions are imposed on the attorney pursuant to 28 USC section 1927, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, and the inherent power of the court; and 2) sanctions imposed on local co-counsel are vacated, based on his colleague's insistence that co-counsel served a peripheral and subordinate role in the appeal.

[02/02] Perry v. Brown
In an action arising out of Proposition 8 same-sex marriage litigation, in which a district court judge granted a motion to unseal a video recording of a trial presided over by his predecessor, which recording had purportedly been prepared by the trial judge for his in-chambers use only and was later placed in the record and sealed by him, the order unsealing the recording is reversed, where: 1) the Ninth Circuit assumed for the purposes of the case that the trial recording was subject to the common-law presumption of public access; and 2) the successor judge abused his discretion because the defendants in the trial reasonably relied on the trial judge's commitments in refraining from challenging his actions, and the setting aside of those commitments would compromise the integrity of the judicial process.

[01/27] Ghaffarpour v. Superior Court
In a case in which the trial court denied a motion by the plaintiffs to disqualify a judge after the case had been remanded, a writ of mandate is issued directing the trial court to vacate its order, where: 1) the time period to file a peremptory challenge to a judge pursuant to Civil Code section 170.6(a)(2) begins on the date of the notice of assignment; 2) the issuance of a remittitur does not provide the required notification, so that a local superior court rule providing that the time period for filing a motion to disqualify begins to run from the date of issuance of the remittitur is void.

[01/10] People v. Clancey
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court striking one of defendant's prior strikes, judgment is reversed where the trial court’s "offer" was not a proper indicated sentence because it was: 1) conditioned on the defendant pleading to all counts and admitting all allegations, and 2) operated as a commitment by the judge to impose the offered sentence or to allow the defendant to withdraw the pleas and admissions.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Free Case Evaluation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

AV PeerReviewRated Martindale-Hubbell | Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb

Client Testimonials

Read more about what our clients have to say about our firm and the quality service and attention to detail that we offer each of our clients.

Testimonial # 1 - "Mr. Manikas worked tirelessly . . .  and delivered results far beyond our expectations . We highly recommend Mr. Manikas , he is a specialist and professional on both sides our legal system. His experience as a former prosecutor gives his clients an added advantage. His in-depth knowledge and keen attention to detail leaves no 'stone unturned' when preparing for a case. Kyle Manikas is a rising star attorney that judges are made from! Have no doubt he will give you the best legal service in the state of Virginia ."

Testimonial #2 - "Kyle Manikas is an excellent attorney and trial lawyer .  Mr. Manikas is an incredibly hard worker. He knows the law and prepares meticulously . He made strategic use of legal tools that other lawyers we had consulted never mentioned were available. He is a masterful litigator in the courtroom . In this case, he achieved a remarkably positive outcome , even earning compliments from the judge for his outstanding work. Mr. Manikas also was a skillful negotiator . In addition, Kyle was a wise, calming advisor during very stressful times. From the first time we talked with him, he gave us hope . He was always prompt in returning phone calls and kept us well-informed of his progress and thinking. There was never any doubt that he honestly cared about his client and about providing the best possible legal representation that he could. He proved himself to be trustworthy and effective . I have the highest regard for Mr. Manikas and absolutely recommend him to anyone who needs legal help. We couldn't have asked for a better lawyer ."

Testimonial #3 - Mr. Manikas provides an excellent and an exceptionally high standard of legal service. While he is attentive to details, he commits to each client to the fullest , to the extent of defining and securing remedies of a subjective and custom nature for each client. He is the standard of service all attorneys should aspire to demonstrate. He is recommended without reservation to any prospective client .

Testimonial #4 - Until a year ago, I never had the need for criminal attorney . . . Then I hired Kyle Manikas, and through him, I experienced what everyone wants when they need help in a criminal matter - knowledge of how the system works, someone who is extremely hard-working , a person who is intelligent, and a professional who never made me feel like I was just another client who paid a fee . . . if you want an attorney who has a good relationship with various prosecutors, who is respected by law enforcement officers , and who is not looked at with disdain by judges and clerks , then you need to make an appointment to meet with Kyle and discuss your case with him. When he spoke in court, he knew the law and the facts - something that I saw other lawyers not knowing during our court appearances. Although he demanded that I be upfront with him and that I provide information that would help, or hurt, my case, I always believed that he was doing so in order to provide me with the best defense possible. Would I recommend Kyle Manikas and his firm to my friends and family? Yes, without reservation. He very much helped me make it through a very trying and demanding time. He walked me through each court hearing and meeting with the prosecutors. I was very lucky when I became a client of Kyle's - he is worth his fee ten-fold . His integrity, his energy, his willingness to go the extra mile may not be for everyone. However, if you are looking for someone who really will represent you to the fullest extent of the law, you will not be disappointed when you hire Kyle Manikas as your lawyer .

More Testimonials »

Legal News Headlines

Manikas Law LLC

Fairfax, Virginia Office
10513 Judicial Drive, Suite 203
Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone: 703-873-7473
Toll Free: 888-503-8075

Map and Directions

Manikas Law LLC

Privacy Policy | FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.