Evidence Case Summaries
[09/09] US v. Armstrong
Defendants' convictions for engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting mail fraud are affirmed where: 1) the trial court's instructions dispelled any danger that the jury would give weight to the exhibit at issue as substantive evidence or to bolster credibility; 2) certain challenged statements were not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and thus were not hearsay; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the use of a summary witness.
[09/09] US v. Miller
Defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm is reversed where the prosecutor improperly vouched for an officer's credibility and there was no curative instruction and no mitigating effect of the government's comments other than restating the proper burden of proof before sending the jury to deliberate.
[09/09] US v. Stadtmauer
Conviction of defendant for conspiracy to defraud the United States and for willfully aiding in the filing of materially false or fraudulent tax returns is affirmed where: 1) the Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. US does not prohibit a willful blindness instruction that applies to a defendant's knowledge of relevant tax law; 2) any error in admitting a witness's testimony was harmless and thus does not require reversal; 3) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert's testimony; and 5) any error in district court's decision to exclude certain exhibits during defense counsel's cross-examination of the government's witnesses did not prejudice defendant.
[09/09] US v. Szymuszkiewicz
In a prosecution of defendant under the Wiretap Act for intentionally intercepting his supervisor's electronic communication, district court's denial of his motion for acquittal is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected defendant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence as he had both motive and opportunity; and 2) the Wiretap Act's definitions treat the acquisition of emails as an interception.
[09/09] Correia v. Feeney
In plaintiff's suit against a police sergeant for violating his civil rights by means of false arrest and the use of excessive force, a denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion for a new trial as it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that the verdict was not clearly against the weight of the evidence; 2) the court's reply to the jury's question was not misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law, nor did it adversely affect plaintiff's substantial rights; and 3) plaintiff cannot establish that any error in allowing a cross examination, or some portion of it, was sufficiently grave to satisfy plain error review.
[09/08] Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against several manufacturers of welding supplies, claiming that the fumes from their products had caused his parkinsonism and that labels on the products had failed to warn of the danger, jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed as the district court exceeded its discretion in admitting an expert's opinion that the manufacturers' products triggered "manganese-induced parkinsonism" in plaintiff, because the "knowledge" requirement of Rule 702 requires more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.
[09/08] US v. Johnson
In a prosecution of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal seizure is reversed and remanded as, because the totality of the circumstances did not provide a particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant of criminal activity, and because the Fourth Amendment simply does not allow a detention based on an officer's gut feeling that a suspect is up to no good, the officers seized defendant without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
[09/08] Thompson v. Runnels
In a first-degree murder prosecution, a denial of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed where the admission at trial of petitioner's confession violated the privilege against self-incrimination, because the investigating officers deliberately withheld Miranda warnings until after he had confessed to the crime.
[09/08] US v. Sliwo
Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, as well as aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana is reversed where: 1) the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the purpose of the conspiracy was the acquisition of marijuana; and 2) defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting must also be reversed as government has failed to present sufficient evidence that defendant knew he was involved involved in a scheme to procure marijuana.
[09/08] US v. Santana-Perez
Defendants' convictions for violating 18 U.S.C. section 2237(a)(1), which makes it a crime for the master, operator, or person in charge of vessel of the United States, or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly fail to obey an order by an authorize Federal law enforcement officer to heave to that vessel, are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in denying a motion for acquittal as there was sufficient evidence that the defendants heard and understood the Coast Guard's order to heave-to; 2) defendant's challenge to the district court's ruling that evidence relating to a prior conviction could be admitted to impeach defendant if he testified at trial is rejected; 3) the government did not improperly vouch for its own witnesses during closing argument; 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a missing evidence instruction; and 5) the district court did not engage in improper questioning during defendant's testimony.
[09/08] Grider v. Auburn
In an action by plaintiffs who owned a bar/restaurant in Auburn, Alabama, against City of Auburn and City employees under state tort law and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming that the City and its agents filed false bribery charges and selectively enforced regulatory laws in order to harm plaintiffs' business, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where, absent the offering of funds, there was no bribery and no arguable probable cause for defendant-officer to arrest plaintiff. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiffs lacked evidence that the city defendants conspired with the officer to maliciously prosecute plaintiff.
[09/08] Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.
[09/08] Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Grp. Ins. Plan
In an action concerning defendant's denial of disability benefits under an ERISA plan, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) the court's case law prohibited courts from considering materials outside the administrative record where the extra-record materials sought to be introduced related to a claimant's eligibility for benefits; and 2) neither a claimant nor an administrator should be allowed to use discovery to engage in unnecessarily broad discovery that slows the efficient resolution of an ERISA claim.
[09/08] People v. Ireland
Conviction of defendant for four counts of forcible rape is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supports each of the convictions of forcible rape as, from all of the evidence, it is clear that the victims did not continue to consent when defendant put the knife to their throats and defendant knew they did not continue to consent; and 2) although the instruction on withdrawal of consent could have been confusing, it was harmless under any standard.
[09/08] Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Martinez
Conviction of defendant for kidnapping for rape and sentence to thirty years in prison is affirmed where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the kidnapping for rape conviction; 2) any Doyle violation in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) defendant's remaining contentions are rejected as meritless.
