Ninth Circuit: Tellez-Ramirez v. Garland

Under modified categorical review, the state drug statute is a valid immigration predicate.  The list of drug classes doesn't establish several means of committing a single crime in itself, but is rather a list of  elements establishing distinct violations--this is due to the varying lengths of sentence, caselaw referencing the need to prove specific substances within a single class, and the fact that the specific illicit substance is named within the jury instructions.  

The overbreadth of the state statute relative to the federal crime doesn't import a similar overbreadth into the mens rea; a belief that the substance was proscribed under state law would suffice for a state conviction that could pass Immigration muster, as the state mens rea and federal mens rea requirements are identical.

State caselaw incorporating solicitation into aiding and abetting, and under which, by statute, the conduct is culpable as the conduct of a principal under the specific state statute doesn't make the specific state statute broader than the federal version, since solicitation alone would be an inchoate offense distinct from an accessory's conviction as a principal under the specific statute, which would require a completed offense--not mere solicitation.

Tellez-Ramirez v. Garland

Ninth Circuit: Craig Ross v. Ronald Davis

 Felony murder constitutional challenge to sentence was appropriately exhausted in state habeas, since despite the state habeas holding to the contrary, petitioner's filings on direct appeal discussed the relevant standard and sought relief.

State jury instructions on aiding and abetting didn't preclude the subsequent capital sentence, because although they didn't require the specific intent necessary under federal law, the separate finding of special circumstances established the necessary intent.

Petitioner had sufficient involvement in the crimes and evinced sufficient reckless disregard of the risk of death.

State court's determinations on ineffective assistance of counsel were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the federal standard; defense counsel's limited investigation of mitigation evidence wasn't dispositive, as it related entirely to early childhood, and defense closing contained many mitigating inferences from the evidence; the latter are appropriately considered in a Strickland claim.

Craig Ross v. Ronald Davis

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Karl Scott

@justicewillett

Conspiracy for Possession with Intent to Distribute doesn't require actual or constructive possession; it suffices that the deft formed an agreement for the others to possess the drugs, knew of that agreement, and voluntarily participated in it.

Aiding and Abetting on the same charge is established when deft associates with a criminal venture, ensures its occurrence, purposefully participated in the venture, and sought to make it succeed.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40552-CR0.pdf

Eighth Circuit: United States v. Kenneth Borders

Conspiracy, Crim, Accomplice, FRE


Different theories of crime on special verdict do not necessarily indicate separate conspiracies.

Rental of unit and possession of key insufficient for accomplice liability where there was no proof that the deft knew the items stored there to be stolen.

 Admission of evidence about civil commercial violations was harmless error.

No abuse of discretion in limiting cross for cooperating witnesses.

Admission of earlier plea agreement as evidence of overt act wasn't double jeopardy.

Summary timeline did not violate FRE.

Sentencing correct on merits.



 United States  v.  Kenneth Borders

First Circuit: US v. Prieto

Crim - accessory

Sufficient evidence for conviction for accessory to use of a firearm where jury might have inferred deft's prior knowledge of possession and deft didn't stop the car and walk away after possession was revealed.

Challenge to jury instructions might have been more appropriate.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-2068P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Harris News Agency, Inc. v. William L. Bowers

Guns.

Error in denial of corporation's application for license to sell guns where the officers of the organization knew that a family member, convicted of a felony, was working as a gunsmith in a prior incarnation of the shop.  Statute requires a willful violation.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151090P.pdf