HELPFUL CASES JUNE 2007

    U.S. Supreme Court
    1st Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    4th Circuit Court of Appeals 
    5th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    6th Circuit Court of Appeals
    7th Circuit Court of Appeals
    8th Circuit Court of Appeals 
    9th Circuit Court of Appeals
    10th Circuit Court of Appeals
    11th Circuit Court of Appeals 
    D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    Supreme Court of Florida
    Illinois Supreme Court
    New York Court of Appeals
    Texas Criminal Court of Appeals

Federal Courts (June 1, 2007-June 30, 2007)

U.S. Supreme Court

Uttecht v. Brown (6/4/2007, No. 06-413) ____ US ____ [167 LEd2d 1014; 127 SCt 2218] The Ninth Circuit found Witherspoon/Witt error (see Witherspoon v. Illinois (68) 391 US 510; Wainwright v. Witt (85) 469 US 412) when a Washington trial court excused a juror for cause who said he would follow the law, but felt that the death penalty should be imposed sparingly, and gave the example that a defendant likely to be released and reviolate would be deserving of death. The Supremes say the Ninth should have been more deferential to the trial court’s determination. They also say that his example was the "equivalent to treating the risk of recidivism as the sole aggravating factor, rather than treating lack of future dangerousness as a possible mitigating consideration." In an articulate dissent that hits the nail on the head over and over, Justice Stevens criticizes the majority opinion as "horribly backwards." He says "[the majority] appears to be under the impression that trial courts should be encouraging the inclusion of jurors who will impose the death penalty rather than only ensuring the exclusion of those who say that, in all circumstances, they cannot.

Fry v. Pliler (6/11/2007, No. 06-5247) ____ US ____ [168 LEd2d 16; 127 SCt 2321]: In 28 USC 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under Brecht's "substantial and injurious effect" standard, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 US 18, 24.

Panetti v. Quarterman (6/28/2007, No. 06-6407) ____ US ____ [2007 U.S. LEXIS 8667]: After an execution date was set, the defendant claimed he was incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright (86) 477 US 399. Defendant claimed to understand that the State wanted to execute him for murder, but asserted that his mental problems resulted in the delusion that the stated reason was a sham, and that the State actually wanted to execute him to stop him from preaching. Texas denied the claim. The USSC overcomes AEDPA procedural hurdles and find that Texas failed to provide defendant an adequate hearing as required by Ford, and that the Fifth Circuit applied the wrong standard when it considered the defendant’s delusion irrelevant to the competency claim. The high court says that a defendant’s awareness of the State’s rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it, and that Ford does not foreclose inquiry into the latter. It sends the matter back to the Fifth Circuit for hearing under the proper standard.

Von Hofe v. U.S. (2nd Cir. 6/27/2007, No. 05-2969) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15239:Judgment ordering forfeiture of claimants' residence to plaintiff is vacated as to claimant wife, as the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment precludes forfeiture of her entire one-half interest in the residence where the extent of the forfeiture bears no correlation either with the wife's minimal culpability or any harm she purportedly caused.

Al-Marri v. Wright (4th Cir. 6/11/2007, No. 06-7427) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13642: In a case where military authorities seized an alien lawfully residing in the U.S. more than four years ago and held him without criminal charge or process based on his designation as an "enemy combatant," dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition is reversed as: 1) the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) does not apply and the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction where there has been no determination by the U.S. that the initial detention was proper, as required by the MCA; and 2) the President lacks power to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain petitioner and the evidence offered by the Government does not afford a basis for treating petitioner as an enemy combatant, or as anything other than a civilian.

U.S. v. Jones (6th Cir. 6/5/2007, No. 06-5551) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12931: Drug and firearms convictions constituted multiple punishment in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Ramonez v. Berghuis (6th Cir. 6/18/2007, No. 06-1852) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14296: IAC for failure to investigate and call three witnesses.

Stevens v. McBride (7th Cir. 6/18/2007, No. 05-1442) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14312: Attorneys' investigation and presentation of expert psychological testimony at his trial amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.

Van Patten v. Endicott (7th Cir. 6/29/2007, No. 04-1276) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13394: Actual or constructive absence of counsel at a critical stage requires new trial].

Simpson v. Norris (8th Cir. 6/27/2007, No. 06-2823) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15229: District court erred in holding that petitioner had defaulted an eighth amendment claim under Atkins that his mental retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty.

U.S. v. Grisel (9th Cir. 6/5/2007, No. 05-30585) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13001:Second-degree burglary under Oregon law is not a categorical burglary for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it encompasses crimes that fall outside the federal definition of generic burglary.

Gautt v. Lewis (9th Cir. 6/6/2007, No. 03-55534) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13018: Defendant’s constitutional due process right to be informed of the charges against him was violated when he was charged with a sentencing enhancement under PC 12022.53(b), but had his sentence enhanced under a second, different statute.

Lopez v. Schriro (9th Cir. 6/20/2007, No. 06-99000) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14470: Certificate of appealability is granted as to claim that petitioner's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present all relevant mitigating evidence at sentencing.

U.S. v. Holly (10th Cir. 6/12/2007, No. 05-7130) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 13727: District court erroneously instructed the jury on the definition of aggravated sexual abuse by suggesting the victim need only be placed in fear of "some bodily harm."

Ogle v. Johnson (11th Cir. 6/15/2007, No. 06-11074) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14022: Pro se petitioner fairly presented his claim to a state habeas court by making a bare allegation of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his state habeas petition and then describing in briefs and testimony in later proceedings several instances of alleged ineffective assistance.

U.S. v. Littlejohn (D.C. Cir. 6/19/2007, No. 05-3081) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14358: District court’s use of compound voir dire questions deprived defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

In re: Grand Jury (D.C. Cir. 6/22/2007, No. 06-3078) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 14809: Grand jury witnesses are entitled to review the transcripts of their own testimony in private.

Bentley v. State of Delaware (6/11/2007, No. 387, 2006) 2007 Del. LEXIS 267: Trial court's limitation of defendant's cross examination of a witness pursuant to her assertion of her Fifth Amendment privilege created at least a substantial danger of prejudice to his right to a fair trial.

Brown v. State of Florida (6/14/2007, No. SC06-628) 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1051: Felony murder conviction and conviction for the lesser included misdemeanor of the separately charged underlying felony are inconsistent verdicts.

People v. Wheeler (6/21/2007, No. 102550) 2007 Ill. LEXIS 1146: Statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments warranted a new trial.

People v. Sedlock.(6/5/2007, No. 77) 8 NY3d 535: Information did not properly give defendant notice of the charge so that he could adequately prepare a defense.

State of New York ex rel. Harkavy v. Consilvio (6/5/2007, No. 70) 2007 N.Y. LEXIS 1272: State improperly used the involuntary civil commitment procedures to transfer offenders directly from prison to mental health facilities.

Villanueva v. State of Texas (6/27/2007, No. PD-0718-06, PD-0719-06) 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 866: Punishing defendant in the same proceeding for injury to a child by act and injury to a child by omission violated double-jeopardy protection.

Thompson v. State of Texas (6/27/2007, No. PD-0044-06) 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 871: Transferred intent – mistake of fact may be raised as a defense.