Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/15] US v. Lewis
District court's conviction of defendant for attempting to possess, with intent to distribute, over 500 grams of cocaine and imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years are affirmed as the government's failure to file a section 851 information was a mistake, but it does not change the fact that defendant had full knowledge of his prior conviction and the penalty he faced.

[03/15] US v. Angle
District court's imposition, following a third remand, of a sentence of 300 months' imprisonment finding that an above-range sentence was warranted in addition to the "pattern of abuse" adjustment is affirmed where: 1) defendant had an unbroken 20-year pattern of abusive conduct; 2) he exploited positions of trust to get at his young victims; 3) he created as well as consumed child pornography; 4) he showed no remorse; 5) he would have faced a significantly higher imprisonment range if sentenced under the current version of the guidelines; and 6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a special condition of supervised release restricting defendant's personal Internet access.

[03/15] Dermer v. Miami-Dade County
In a First Amendment challenge to a county ordinance prohibiting any false statement concerning the contents or effect of any petition for initiative, referendum, or recall, partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance because he failed to submit any detail, such as when, where, or how he intended to exercise his right to free speech in the future, that illuminated the specifics of his claimed injury; and 2) plaintiff's claim was not ripe because his allegations contained no factual specificity and, therefore, did not demonstrate a credible threat of prosecution.

Read More

Evidence

[03/15] Woodward v. Dep't of Justice
In petitioner's claim seeking death benefits for the death of her husband-volunteer firefighter under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act, BJA's denial of the claim based on the conclusion that smoke inhalation was not a substantial factor in the death of her husband is reversed and remanded as an amended regulation (first applied midway through the agency proceedings) changed the burden of proof from a lenient standard resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant to the more stringent standard requiring that a claimant prove all material issues of fact by a "more likely than not" standard, which is a significant change in the law that disfavors retroactive application of the amended regulation.

[03/15] US v. Frank
Defendant's conviction for traveling and engaging in illicit sexual conduct with minors is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress defendant's non-Mirandized statements to Cambodian officials because the statements did not fall under the joint venture doctrine; 2) 18 U.S.C. section 2251A applied extraterritorially to reach defendant's conduct; 3) defendant's statement that the minor girls came to his hotel "for the pictures and to have sex together," taken into account with the other evidence presented, allowed the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant engaged in illicit sexual conduct; and 4) the term "purchase," as used in 18 U.S.C. section 2251A(b), covered situations where a defendant pays a minor directly for sex.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

Read More

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

[06/08] PEOPLE v. PESCADOR
A judge, substituted into a trial following three days of testimony, can fairly and competently preside without first reading all prior testimony, as long as he familiarized himself with pertinent portions of the record before making specific rulings.

Read More