Title VII, S1983 Conspiracy
Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.
Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Conspiracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conspiracy. Show all posts
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Levon Dean, Jr.
Hobbs Act robbery.
Where a statute has an express nexus to interstate commerce, the actual connection can be small; in this case, it suffices that the robbery affected the victim's ability to participate in interstate drug purchases.
Sufficient connection between the crimes for a common conspiracy, but harmless error, as participants were principals in both actions.
Because victim was hit rather hard on the head, there was sufficient bodily injury for the carjacking statute - injury need not be in or near the car.
As codeft had a distinctive walk while carrying a gun, sufficient evidence for knowledge of the gun.
Intent to affect interstate drug commerce not a necessary jury instruction for conspiracy count.
Constructive possession / vehicle instruction upheld.
Hearsay evidence properly considered in sentencing.
Sentencing court's denial of de minimis sentence for counts not subject to mandatory minimums was proper, despite the fact that the court stated that it did not have the power to impose a de minimis sentence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151263P.pdf
Where a statute has an express nexus to interstate commerce, the actual connection can be small; in this case, it suffices that the robbery affected the victim's ability to participate in interstate drug purchases.
Sufficient connection between the crimes for a common conspiracy, but harmless error, as participants were principals in both actions.
Because victim was hit rather hard on the head, there was sufficient bodily injury for the carjacking statute - injury need not be in or near the car.
As codeft had a distinctive walk while carrying a gun, sufficient evidence for knowledge of the gun.
Intent to affect interstate drug commerce not a necessary jury instruction for conspiracy count.
Constructive possession / vehicle instruction upheld.
Hearsay evidence properly considered in sentencing.
Sentencing court's denial of de minimis sentence for counts not subject to mandatory minimums was proper, despite the fact that the court stated that it did not have the power to impose a de minimis sentence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151263P.pdf
Ninth Circuit: USA v. Samuel Navarette-Aguilar
Drugs - Sentencing, Conspiracy.
A jury cannot speculate that events outside scope of proof would have allowed the total amount of drugs to rise to the level contemplated by the statute.
Deft's witness opened the door for prior bad acts.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/28/14-30056.pdf
A jury cannot speculate that events outside scope of proof would have allowed the total amount of drugs to rise to the level contemplated by the statute.
Deft's witness opened the door for prior bad acts.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/28/14-30056.pdf
Sixth Circuit: USA v. Vishnu Meda
Hearsay, Conspiracy, Sentencing.
No Double Jeopardy, as although the offenses were of the same nature and occurred at the same place, the players and the overt acts differed.
No prosecutorial vindictiveness, as there was no evidence in the record of malice, and the indictment was returned.
Although trial court did not explicitly find the person in question to be a co-conspirator, a preponderance of evidence to that effect allows the testimony to survive plain error review under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
Testimony by deft's husband offered to prove state of mind of deft during a business meeting properly excluded under hearsay, as it worked to impeach earlier testimony as to the content of the meeting.
Prosecutors' sidebar followed by court's in camera hearing and warning to witness on self-incrimination was not witness intimidation by prosc.
No error in denial of grant of immunity to defense witness, as there was no showing as to likely effect on the case.
No error in court's refusal to order the witness to invoke 5A on stand, or bar prosecution cross.
Sentencing - once a factor is proven at trial, burden shifts to deft to specifically rebut - a general indictment of the testimony doesn't suffice.
No error in sentencing bump for leadership, as deft was part owner and sole signatory of fraudulent organization.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0298p-06.pdf
No Double Jeopardy, as although the offenses were of the same nature and occurred at the same place, the players and the overt acts differed.
No prosecutorial vindictiveness, as there was no evidence in the record of malice, and the indictment was returned.
Although trial court did not explicitly find the person in question to be a co-conspirator, a preponderance of evidence to that effect allows the testimony to survive plain error review under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
Testimony by deft's husband offered to prove state of mind of deft during a business meeting properly excluded under hearsay, as it worked to impeach earlier testimony as to the content of the meeting.
Prosecutors' sidebar followed by court's in camera hearing and warning to witness on self-incrimination was not witness intimidation by prosc.
No error in denial of grant of immunity to defense witness, as there was no showing as to likely effect on the case.
No error in court's refusal to order the witness to invoke 5A on stand, or bar prosecution cross.
Sentencing - once a factor is proven at trial, burden shifts to deft to specifically rebut - a general indictment of the testimony doesn't suffice.
No error in sentencing bump for leadership, as deft was part owner and sole signatory of fraudulent organization.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0298p-06.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)