Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[05/14] Correll v. Ryan
Denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded for a new penalty hearing where defendant was constitutionally entitled to the presentation of a mitigation defense, but did not have an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence. (Amended opinion on denial of rehearing en banc)
[05/14] US v. Peralez
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a firearm, grant of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed and remanded where, even though the evidence was the fruit of an improperly extended traffic stop, the dog sniff which resulted in the seizure of evidence was not a result of that improper extension.
[05/14] Walker v. Sheahan
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challenged.
[05/14] Purtell v. Mason
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.
[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.
[05/13] U.S. v. Hildenbrand
Defendants' guilty plea convictions for defrauding the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are affirmed over claims of error regarding the sufficiency of the factual resumes submitted in support of defendants' guilty pleas.
[05/13] U.S. v. Pasillas-Castanon
A conviction for knowingly possessing a counterfeit green card is affirmed where: 1) the Speedy Trial Act generally does not apply to detentions based on civil deportation charges; and 2) the "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act did not apply in case at hand.
[05/13] U.S. v. Zamora-Solorzano
A sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine is affirmed over a claim that the district court erred under Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), in giving the Guidelines sentence "considerable weight."
[05/13] US v. Crandall
Defendants' convictions for mail, wire, and honest services fraud are affirmed where are affirmed where their proposed jury instruction on "intent to defraud" was not supported by law and the jury instructions that were given adequately covered their lack of intent defense theory. However, their sentences and a restitution order are vacated where: 1) the district court improperly relied on an Application Note to calculate the loss that resulted from the fraud; and 2) it was unclear whether the restitution amount was based on what was actually lost by the victims of the fraud.
[05/13] US v. Bucci
Conviction for drug- and firearm-related offenses, as well as, witness tampering and making false statements to the Drug Enforcement Administration, is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) deficient trial counsel performance in violation of Sixth Amendment; 2) a denial of a motion to sever; 3) alleged structural error by the district court in closing the courtroom to the public on two occasions; 4) whether the district court permitted a constructive amendment of the indictment; 5) the sufficiency of the evidence; 6) erroneous jury instructions; 7) Sixth Amendment violation in the court's application of sentencing guidelines; and 8) a ruling allowing the government to redact portions of the recording and transcript of a conversation over a request for inclusion for impeachment purposes.
More...
|
