HELPFUL CASES MARCH 2007

    1st Circuit Court of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    4th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    5th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    6th Circuit Court of Appeals [None this update]
    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 [None this update] 
    Texas Criminal Court of Appeals

Federal Courts (March 1, 2007-March 31, 2007)

1st Circuit Court of Appeals

U.S. v. Tobin (1st Cir. 3/21/2007, No. 06-1883) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6465: Conviction for telephone harassment reversed where a jury instruction inappropriately broadened the scope of definition of "intent to harass." A reasonable jury could have convicted defendant based on the evidence unless it found that the statute required an explicit "purpose" of harassment, rather than a mere knowledge that harassment was likely to occur.

McKithen v. Queens County Dist. Attorney (2nd Cir. 3/13/2007, No. 03-0168) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5763: In civil rights action seeking access to DNA testing that plaintiff claims may exonerate him of his conviction, dismissal of claim is vacated as: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, relied on by the district court, does not apply to plaintiff's suit; 2) plaintiff's suit is not barred by the rule of Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 US 475 [36 LEd2d 439; 93 SCt 1827] and Heck v. Humphrey (1994) 512 US 477 [129 LEd 2d 383; 114 SCt 2364]; and 3) defendant waived any possible defense of claim preclusion, and it would be inappropriate for the court of appeals to raise the defense sua sponte.

U.S. v. Simpson (7th Cir. 3/13/2007, No. 05-2993) 479 F3d 492: Prosecution's closing argument improperly appealed to defendant's propensity to deal in crack cocaine.

Miller v. Vannatta (7th Cir. 3/15/2007, No. 05-3978) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5936: Indiana Court of Appeals unreasonably applied federal law in concluding that defense counsel's decision to stand mute at defendant's sentencing hearing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

U.S. v. Real Property Located at 3234 Washington Ave. N. (8th Cir. 3/22/2007, No. 06-1983) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6601: Summary judgment for the government in forfeiture action reversed where conflicting evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding the existence of a substantial connection between the property and alleged drug activity.

Sarausad v. Porter (9th Cir. 3/7/2007, No. 05-35062, 05-35192) 479 F3d 671: Ambiguous jury instructions on accomplice liability, in combination with other factors, unconstitutionally relieved the state of its burden of proof of an element of the crimes with which he was charged.

US v. Latu (9th Cir. 3/19/2007, No. 05-10815) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6296: Conviction for violating 18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) is reversed pursuant to the government's confession of error.

US v. Rendon-Duarte (9th Cir. 3/21/2007, No. 06-30200) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6458: District court erred in admitting "prior bad acts."

Barajas v. Wise (9th Cir. 3/23/2007, No. 06-15494) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6796: Prosecution failed to provide reasons specific to the case to justify nondisclosure of name and address of informant.

US v. Valenzuela-Puentes (10th Cir. 3/15/2007, No. 04-2283) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6045: Grant of government's motion to allow for involuntary medication so as to render him competent to stand trial is reversed where: 1) record did not contain sufficient evidence that defendant could be rendered competent through medication despite his exceptionally low IQ; and 2) it was unclear whether the district court applied the appropriate burden of proof.

Thompson v. U.S. (11th Cir. 3/14/2007, No. 05-16970) 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 6410: Guilty plea must be vacated because counsel did not adequately consult with defendant on his right to appeal and defendant was prejudiced from such failure.

State Courts (March 1, 2007-March 31, 2007)

Ex parte Masonheimer (Tex. Crim. App. 3/21/2007, No. PD-521-05) 2007 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 373: Prosecution was jeopardy-barred under state and federal constitutions because defendant's mistrial motions, which resulted in termination of two earlier proceedings prior to verdict, were provoked by the state's intentional failure to disclose exculpatory evidence with the specific intent to avoid an acquittal at the earlier proceeding.