Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[05/09] U.S. v. Day
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal forfeiture context.

[05/06] US v. Brodie
A conviction and sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy to obtain mortgage loans using false statements is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the district court's sustaining an objection to defense counsel's closing argument impugning a witness' veracity from facts not in the record; 2) the prosecution's failure to disclose possible impeachment evidence until seven days after trial; 3) improper application of a four-point "leader or organizer" enhancement to defendant's offense level; 4) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from a failure to request a downward departure based on defendant's immigration status; 5) insufficient evidence; 6) counsel's failure to move for a judgment acquittal; 7) qualification of one of the witnesses as an expert; 8) violations of the Speedy Trial Act; 9) improper venue; 10) admission of documentary evidence by agreement of the parties without the opportunity for defendant to cross-examine witnesses; 11) a forfeiture order; and 12) other arguments which were abandoned on appeal because they amounted to conclusionary statements.

[05/02] Smith v. City of Chicago
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising from the seizure of certain of plaintiffs' property under Illinois' Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act (DAFPA), dismissal of the action is reversed and remanded where the circuit court recognizes that it is a violation of due process not to have a post-seizure/pre-forfeiture hearing given the length of time which can result between the seizure of property and the opportunity for an owner to contest the seizure under DAFPA.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/09] US v. Martinez
In a sentencing proceeding wherein the district court applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of proof to the facts supporting the enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed was reasonable; and 3) the doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not apply to invalidate the sentence imposed.

[05/09] US v. Regalado
Sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base is remanded where: 1) in light of the holding in Kimbrough, it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed a non-Guidelines sentence had it been aware of the Guidelines' advisory nature, and that it had the discretion to deviate from the Guidelines; and 2) the absence of that information precluded a review for plain error.

[05/08] U.S. v. Friday
In a prosecution against a member of a Native American tribe for shooting an eagle without a permit in contravention of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), dismissal of the indictment based on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge is reversed and remanded for trial where the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government's compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle.

More...

Habeas Corpus

[05/08] Boston v. Weber
Dismissal of a habeas petition as untimely based on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) statute of limitations is affirmed where: 1) the period between the date the judgment became final and the filing date of a state habeas application was included in the AEDPA one-year limitation period; and 2) the state did not waive the AEDPA statute of limitations defense.

[05/08] Thompson v. Choinski
Dismissal of a habeas petition is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) insofar as the petition challenged the conviction, it was a "second or successive motion" which did not satisfy the requirements for such a motion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255; 2) claims protesting conditions of confinement imposed by a state facility became moot when petitioner was transferred back to a federal prison; but 3) the district court erroneously dismissed claims protesting the federally imposed conditions of confinement based on petitioner's failure to exhaust state remedies and for other perceived defects in pleading.

[05/06] House v. Bravo
In habeas proceedings arising from petitioner's conviction for driving while intoxicated, vehicular homicide, and related offenses, denial of the habeas petition is affirmed over challenges alleging that: 1) a transfer of venue improperly eliminated all Native American members from the venire; 2) court misapplied federal law by failing to conduct voir dire before presuming that an entire county venire was tainted by pretrial publicity, and transferring venue; 3) the state's discriminatory use of a New Mexico venue transfer statute constituted a structural error that violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights; 4) the state court erred in its sentencing decision; and 5) the trial court's refusal to recuse at resentencing violated the defendant's right to due process.

More...