Criminal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[12/31] US v. House
Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distribution of crack cocaine is affirmed where the district court: 1) properly adjusted base offense level due to defendant's obstruction of justice in asking defense witness not to testify; 2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence based on the disparity in the sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine; and 3) properly considered all the requisite factors under sentencing law.

[12/31] US v. Hill
Conviction for bank robbery is affirmed where the district court committed harmless error in admitting evidence that defendant bought a luxury car shortly after the bank robbery. Defendant's challenge to the impartiality of his jury is also rejected because the court's method of questioning potential jurors was sufficient to assure that any prejudice would have been discovered and, in any event, defendant had failed to use all his peremptory challenges.

[12/31] Corcoran v. Buss
District court's grant of death row inmate's habeas petition is reversed because prosecutor's offer to forego seeking the death penalty if defendant would agree to a bench trial did not penalize defendant for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial. State supreme court properly examined and rejected defendant's claim that he was incompetent to waive post-conviction proceedings.

[12/31] US v. Vargas
Conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute is affirmed. District court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant's prior drug trafficking activities under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) because it was relevant to show Defendant's knowledge and criminal intent, and the minimal risk of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

Read More

Asset Forfeiture

[10/30] US v. Levesque
A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), affects the forfeiture determination in this case; and 3) the case is remanded for lower court to consider whether the imposition of the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment in light of recent pertinent case law.

[10/20] US v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull Number 721
Following a decision finding that the government failed to take reasonable steps to notify a part-owner of a vessel of its intent to forfeit, the damage award of a share of net sales and attorneys' fees is affirmed as modified where the district court erred only in using an impermissible factor to justify an across-the-board disallowance of two-thirds of the time that one attorney claimed to have spent in litigating the default judgment.

[10/15] Turnacliff v. Westly
In a dispute over the amount of interest paid on return of previously unclaimed property, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant Comptroller correctly construed California Code of Civil Procedure section 1540(c) and did not violate the Takings Clause when he returned plaintiff's previously abandoned property with statutorily-determined interest of 1.69 percent.

[09/26] Chichakli v. Szubin
In an action challenging a "Blocking Notice" issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) exigent circumstances justified the holding of a post-deprivation hearing after plaintiff's assets were frozen; 2) OFAC's determination that plaintiff was subject to a presidential order freezing his assets was neither arbitrary nor capricious; but 3) jurisdiction over plaintiff's taking claim was held exclusively by the Court of Federal Claims.

Read More

Sentencing

[12/31] US v. House
Defendant's sentence of 188 months for distribution of crack cocaine is affirmed where the district court: 1) properly adjusted base offense level due to defendant's obstruction of justice in asking defense witness not to testify; 2) did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce sentence based on the disparity in the sentencing guidelines for powder cocaine versus crack cocaine; and 3) properly considered all the requisite factors under sentencing law.

[12/31] US v. Spinelli
Conviction for conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, both for the purpose of increasing and maintaining a position in a racketeering enterprise, and related offenses are affirmed. Although the prosecutor erred by vouching to the jury that the government's cooperating accomplices had never perjured themselves or falsely implicated anybody in a crime, her improper remarks did not justify disturbing the verdict.

[12/31] Singh v. US Attorney Gen.
Petitioner was properly deemed deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony (burglary) for which a sentence of at least one year was imposed. A conviction in adult court is a conviction for immigration purposes, no matter how old the alien was at the time of the offense.

[12/30] US v. Barraza-Ramos
Sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported alien previously convicted of an aggravated felony is reversed and remanded. The district court incorrectly applied an upward departure for a felony "crime of violence" where defendant's previous offense of felony aggravated battery is not categorically a crime of violence.

Read More