HELPFUL CASES AUGUST 2008
SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL CASES FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE
1st Circuit Court of Appeals
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals
4th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
5th Circuit Court of
Appeals
6th Circuit Court of
Appeals
7th Circuit Court of
Appeals
8th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
9th Circuit Court of
Appeals
10th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
11th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals [None this update]
Supreme Court of
Delaware
Supreme Court of Florida [None this update]
New York Court of
Appeals [None this update]
Illinois Supreme Court [None this update]
Texas Criminal
Court of Appeals [None this update]
Federal Courts (August 1-31, 2008)
Selected Decisions:
U.S. v. Carrasco (8/28/2008, 1st Cir. No. 06-1887, 06-1888) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18522: District court erroneously reversed its own ruling, with no consideration for the reliance of the parties and after other defendant had already testified.
U.S. v. Marcus (8/14/2008, 2nd Cir. No. 07-4005) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17222: Conviction and sentence for violation of sex trafficking statute, the forced labor statute, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) reversed where: 1) district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury with respect to the date of the enactment of TVPA; and 2) the application of the TVPA in such a manner constituted an Ex Post Facto Clause violation.
U.S. v. Stein (8/28/2008, 2nd Cir. No. 07-3042) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18524: Government deprived defendants of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment by causing defendant’s employer to place conditions on the advancement of legal fees to defendants, to cap the fees and ultimately to end them.
U.S. v. Kozeny (8/29/2008, 2nd Cir. No. 07-3107) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18534: 18 USC 3292, and the structure and content of the law by which it was enacted, require the government to apply for a suspension of the running of the statute of limitations before the limitations period expires.
U.S. v. Wecht (8/1/2008, 3rd Cir. No. 07-4767) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16435: There is a presumptive First Amendment right to obtain the names of jurors prior to empanelment.
Oliver v. Quarterman (8/14/2008, 5th Cir. No. 06-70006) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17307: Jury's consultation of the Bible during sentencing deliberations amounted to an improper external influence on deliberations.
U.S. v. Driver (8/1/2008, 6th Cir. No. 04-4470, 04-4471) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16259: The evidence was not sufficient to convict defendant of the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy offenses.
U.S. v. Wheeler (8/1/2008, 6th Cir. No. 05-3140) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257: Indictment for substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy offenses violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because of an earlier prosecution.
Wrinkles v. Buss (8/12/2008, 7th Cir. No. 05-2747) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17150: Counsel's failure to object to the trial judge's blanket policy requiring restraints constituted ineffective assistance.
U.S. v. Thornton (8/26/2008, 7th Cir. No. 07-2839) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18329: Jury instruction on the bank-robbery charge erroneously failed to require the jury to find actual intimidation.
Toliver v. McCaughtry (8/27/2008, 7th Cir. No. 06-3316) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18373: Habeas claim remanded where state court did not resolve factual questions of whether petitioner's trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and whether the prosecutor had received a letter that should have been disclosed as Brady evidence.
U.S. v. Straub (8/15/2008, 9th Cir. No. 07-30182) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17426: For a defendant to compel use immunity the defendant must show that: 1) the defense witness's testimony was relevant; and 2) either (a) the prosecution intentionally caused the defense witness to invoke the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with the purpose of distorting the fact-finding process, or (b) the prosecution granted immunity to a government witness to obtain that witness's testimony, but denied immunity to a defense witness whose testimony would have directly contradicted that of the government witness, with the effect of so distorting the fact-finding process that the defendant was denied his due process right to a fundamentally fair trial.
Tilcock v. Budge (8/15/2008, 9th Cir. No. 07-16184) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17506: Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing.
Harris v. State of Delaware (8/29/2008, No. 125, 2008) 2008 Del. LEXIS 390: Six-year delay in imposing sentence, without any justifiable reason or explanation, violated defendant's right to a speedy sentencing.