News
White Collar Crime
[07/23]
[07/22]
[07/16]
[07/16]
[07/15]
Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[09/03]
US v. Blitch
Convictions of defendants for conspiring to distribute 15 kilograms of cocaine are vacated and remanded as the court's failure to individually voir dire the second panel regarding its safety concerns, and her instructions to keep deliberating after the jury poll, when the jury had specifically requested to leave for the day, leads to the conclusion that the defendants should receive a new trial.
[09/03]
Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.
[09/03]
Socha v. Pollard
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas corpus as untimely, in concluding that another district judge's order extending the limitations period was an impermissible advisory opinion and thus of no effect because the court issued the order before defendant had filed his petition, is vacated and remanded where: 1) an order accepting a filing after the limitations period has run is not beyond the power of the district court, and it is effective if it can meet the standards for equitable tolling that the Supreme Court described in Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010); and 2) the district court erred by focusing too closely on the fact that defendant had not already filed something that he had labeled as his petition as, not only does the motion anticipate an imminent action in which defendant and the state will be adverse, but also the parties have opposing interests on the immediate question of whether to toll the statute of limitations.
Evidence
[09/03]
Babick v. Berghuis
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his convictions for arson and first-degree felony murder, as well as a sentence of two terms of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, is affirmed where: 1) defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit as he has shown no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel's failure to produce an arson expert in support of his not-arson defense; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing; 3) defendant's claim, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the basis of a witness's testimony regarding the time of defendant's visit to the house that burned down, is rejected; and 4) defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are rejected.
[09/03]
Stock v. Rednour
District court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his first degree murder conviction of his girlfriend is affirmed as the Illinois court reviewing defendant's conviction did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, because the testimony he intended to elicit from a key witness was inconclusive for the purpose of impeachment.
[09/03]
US v. McGilberry
District court's conviction of defendant for conspiracy to distribute marijuana is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 2) government proved a single conspiracy as alleged in the indictment; and 3) the court did not err by permitting the government to introduce subsequent propensity evidence under Federal Rule Evidence 404(b).
Family Law
[09/02]
In re Jose C.
Juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in finding that the child was likely to be adopted; and 2) juvenile court did not err in failing to consider "presumed father" status for the grandfather.
[09/02]
In re H.S.
Juvenile court's orders adjudicating minors to be dependent children and removing them from parental custody are affirmed as the tern "new evidence" in section 388 means material evidence that, with due diligence, the party could not have presented at the dependency proceeding at which the order, sought to be modified or set aside, was entered, and here, the father's section 388 motion relied on a expert opinion that was based not on any new evidence, but on the same evidence available to the experts who testified at trial. Further, to allow the belated new opinion evidence to support a section 388 motion would be contrary to the public policy calling for promptness and finality of juvenile dependency proceedings in order to protect the best interests of the child.
[09/02]
In re A.L.
In dependency proceedings, trial court's dispositional order that minor child be returned to the custody of her mother and an order of family enhancement services is affirmed where: 1) because parental custody of the child was not disrupted by the dispositional order, and the child was not placed in foster care, there is no current need to "reunify" this family; and 2) father has made no showing that the "family enhancement" services ordered for him were not reasonable or did not constitute child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency.
