HELPFUL CASES JUNE 2008
SELECTED STATE AND FEDERAL CASES FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE
U.S.
Supreme Court
1st Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals
4th Circuit Court of Appeals
5th Circuit Court of
Appeals
6th Circuit Court of
Appeals [None this update]
7th Circuit Court of
Appeals [None this update]
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 Florida
New York Court of
Appeals
Illinois Supreme Court [None this update]
Texas Criminal
Court of Appeals [None this update]
Federal Courts (June 1-30, 2008)
Selected Decisions:
U.S. v. Santos (6/2/2008, No. 06-1005) ____ US ____ [170 LEd2d 912; 128 SCt 2020]: The term "proceeds" in the federal money-laundering statute, 18 USC 1956(a)(1), means "profits," and not "receipts." Another justice joined in the judgment, opining that revenue which a gambling business uses to pay essential operating expenses is not "proceeds" under the statute.
Cuellar v. U.S. (6/2/2008, No. 06-1456) ____ US ____ [170 LEd2d 942; 128 SCt 1994]: The federal money laundering statute, 18 USC 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) does not require proof that a defendant attempted to "legitimize" tainted funds, but the government must demonstrate that a defendant did more than merely hide the money during its transport.
Indiana v. Edwards (6/19/2008, No. 07-208) ____ US ____ [128 SCt 2379; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5031]: The trial court’s refusal to permit the defendant adjudged competent to stand trial, but not competent to conduct trial proceedings sufficiently to proceed in pro per, and the court’s subsequent appointment of counsel, did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right of self-representation within the meaning of Faretta v. California (75) 422 U.S. 806.
Rothgery v. Gillespie County (6/23/2008, No. 07-440) ____ US ____ [128 SCt 2578; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5057]: A criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a judicial officer, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the start of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Court rules that attachment of the right does not also require that a prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of such initial proceeding or be involved in its conduct.
Giles v. California (6/25/2008, No. 07-6053) ____ US ____ [128 SCt 2678; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5264]: In Crawford (541 US 36), the US Supremes held that admission of testimonial hearsay violates the confrontation clause unless there was a previous opportunity to cross-examine. However, California’s forfeiture by wrongdoing rule said that making the witness unavailable was enough to trigger this exception. The U.S.S.C. disagreed. The prosecutor has to show that the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying, not just conduct that resulted in the witness not testifying. Also, Crawford applies against the prosecution but not the defense.
Kennedy v. Louisiana (6/25/2008, No. 07-343) 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262: The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars a state from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death.
District of Columbia v. Heller (6/26/2008, No. 07-290) 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268: The 2nd Amendment protection of the right to bear arms precludes laws limiting an individual’s right to conspicuous carrying of a firearm. Concealed firearms can be banned, as can automatic weapons, possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, and firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Therefore, this would appear to invalidate any statute barring non-concealed possession of non-automatic weapons in public, including in cars. It would also render detentions and arrests for possession of such weapons illegal.
U.S. v. Miller (6/02/2008, 3rd Cir. No. 06-5187) 527 F3d 54: Double jeopardy barred convictions for both receiving and possessing the same images of child pornography.
Gray v. Branker (6/24/2008, 4th Cir. No. 06-29) 529 F3d 220: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and develop, for sentencing purposes, evidence that petitioner suffered from a severe mental illness, and it was reasonably probable that this failure prejudiced the outcome at sentencing.
Moore v. Quarterman (6/26/2008, 5th Cir. No. 05-70038) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13463: Petitioner suffered prejudice from the then uncertain state of Texas law on how to present Atkins evidence in state court.
U.S. v. Kirk (6/19/2008, 8th Cir. No. 07-3215) 528 F3d 1102: Conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime is reversed and remanded where in light of Watson v. US (2007) ____ US ____ [169 LEd2d 472; 128 SCt 579], a person does not "use" a firearm when he receives it in exchange for drugs.
Delgadillo v. Woodford (6/3/2008, 9th Cir. No. 07-55089) 527 F3d 919: A state habeas court may apply Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 US 36, retroactively on collateral review.
Belmontes v. Ayers (6/13/2008, 9th Cir. No. 01-99018) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12630: Petitioner received inadequate representation by his counsel at the penalty phase of his trial, particularly with regard to counsel’s investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence.
U.S. v. Chapman (6/23/2008, 9th Cir. No. 07-50000) 528 F3d 1215: (1) 18 USC 111(a) allows misdemeanor convictions only where the acts constitute simple assault.(2) Defendant’s nonviolent civil disobedience in "tensing up" did not constitute a simple assault.
U.S. v. Yarbrough (6/3/2008, 10th Cir. No. 06-5229) 527 F3d 1092: Good character as defense theory. Conviction reversed where the court abused its discretion in excluding defendant’s character evidence and such exclusion deprived him of important evidence relevant to a controverted question at the center of his defense.
U.S. v. Redcorn (6/9/2008, 10th Cir. No. 06-5206, 06-5207) 528 F3d 727: Insufficient evidence of wire fraud.
U.S. v. Archer (6/26/2008, 11th Cir. No. 07-11488) 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13462: In light of Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Begay (2008) ____ US ____ [170 LEd2d 490; 128 SCt 1581], the crime of carrying a concealed firearm may no longer be considered a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.
District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. v. Law (6/13/2008, D.C. Cir. No. 05-3091) 528 F3d 888: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for conspiring to launder money; (2) the conviction for selling crack cocaine merges with a conviction for selling the same drugs near a school, and one conviction is vacated for violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) insufficient evidence supported a conviction of maintaining a drug residence.
Rivera v. Florida (6/12/2008, FL No. SC05-1873) 2008 Fla. LEXIS 1069: (1) an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to whether the state permitted false or misleading evidence to be presented to the jury; (2) an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to the issue of newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence.
People v. Hunter (6/12/2008, NY No. 92) 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 1491: Brady violation where (1) the government learned, but did not disclose to defendant, that the same woman had recently accused another man of raping her in that man’s home; and (2) post-trial events do not serve to nullify a defendant’s rights under Brady at the time of trial and before it.
People v. Montilla (6/25/2008, NY No. 116) 2008 N.Y. LEXIS 1817: When the Penal Law does not define a particular term, it is presumed that the term should be given its precise and well settled legal meaning in the state’s jurisprudence, and thus borrowing the Criminal Procedure Law’s definition of a "conviction" to give meaning to the word "convicted" in Penal Law is justified.