Legal News

Case Summaries

Evidence

[09/01] Middlebrooks v. Bell
District court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his 1989 conviction for capital murder of a fourteen-year-old is affirmed as the district court correctly determined that defendant's claims are either procedurally defaulted or do not provide a basis for vacating his death sentence under the strictures of AEDPA.

[09/01] US v. Allen
Conviction of defendant for drug and firearm related offenses is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict defendant on all counts; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a denial of a motion of acquittal; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two prior convictions under Rule 404(b); 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting crack cocaine into evidence; 5) the dashboard video simply does not show that the officer planted the crack cocaine, and there is not basis in the evidence for finding outrageous government conduct; and 6) district court properly admitted the evidence seized during defendant's arrest.

[09/01] US v. Lupton
Conviction of defendant for corrupt solicitation, wire fraud, and making false statements to government officials for seeking kickbacks in connection with a sale and leaseback of a government owned building, is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony; 2) a rational factfinder could readily conclude that defendant had authority to act on behalf of the state and was thus an "agent" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 666(d)(1); 2) the proposed transaction was not a bona fide transaction; 3) defendant's challenges to his wire fraud conviction are rejected; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that defendant knowingly and willfully made the statements in the course of a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and that the statements were false and material.

[09/01] US v. Wilson
Defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, are affirmed in part where: 1) the shooting as to which the district court admitted evidence was similar to the drug-trafficking charged in this case because it stemmed from a dispute over a drug debt; and 2) the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. However, the convictions are reversed in part where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that defendant knew, on June 9, 2007, that there was cocaine in a cohort's car.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/01] US v. Wilson
Defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, are affirmed in part where: 1) the shooting as to which the district court admitted evidence was similar to the drug-trafficking charged in this case because it stemmed from a dispute over a drug debt; and 2) the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. However, the convictions are reversed in part where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that defendant knew, on June 9, 2007, that there was cocaine in a cohort's car.

[09/01] US v. Nguyen
Following defendant's conviction for possession with intent to manufacture 1,000 or more marijuana plants and the district court's imposition of an 83-month sentence, followed by four years of supervised release, requiring defendant to submit to a drug test within fifteen days of her release from confinement and periodic drug tests thereafter during the supervised release term, defendant's appeal is dismissed where: 1) defendant's claim that the district court violated Rule 32(i)(1)(A) is weak, and the claim that the court violated the Court Interpreters Act is simply wrong as, in light of defendant's representations, it appears that the absence of translation of the PSI report into Vietnamese had no effect on her substantial rights; and 2) the challenged condition fit the circumstances of the crime, and as such, there was no miscarriage of justice.

[09/01] US v. Ortiz
Defendant's sentence for various firearms and narcotics offenses is affirmed where the sentence did not violate the Ex Post Facto Law clause because defendant’s sentencing range under the unamended Sentencing Guidelines would have been 151 to 188 months, under the amended Guidelines the range would have been 168 to 210 months, and the district court imposed a non-Guidelines sentence of 120 months.

[09/01] US v. Lupton
Conviction of defendant for corrupt solicitation, wire fraud, and making false statements to government officials for seeking kickbacks in connection with a sale and leaseback of a government owned building, is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony; 2) a rational factfinder could readily conclude that defendant had authority to act on behalf of the state and was thus an "agent" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 666(d)(1); 2) the proposed transaction was not a bona fide transaction; 3) defendant's challenges to his wire fraud conviction are rejected; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that defendant knowingly and willfully made the statements in the course of a matter within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and that the statements were false and material.

Read More