Trial practice, sentencing.
Prosecutor's close didn't misquote, comment on silence, shift burdens.
Sentencing variances sufficiently explained.
Sentence not substantively unreasonable in the totality of things, as deft planned to resell the weapons as opposed to simply serving as a straw buyer.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1353P-01A.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 FRCrimP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRCrimP. Show all posts
Fourth Circuit: US v. William White
Crim - Extortion
Lack of subjective 'true threat' instruction ultimately harmless error.
Claim of right to the funds owed does not bar prosecution for communicating threats of physical harm, as the threats are themselves wrongful.
As the jury was told that it was being empaneled anonymously to prevent press communication, no error in anonymous empanelment.
Telephone notes admitted on direct as present-sense impressions might have been hearsay, but harmless error.
Sentence did not inappropriately consider deft's political views.
No error in not grouping counts.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144375.P.pdf
Lack of subjective 'true threat' instruction ultimately harmless error.
Claim of right to the funds owed does not bar prosecution for communicating threats of physical harm, as the threats are themselves wrongful.
As the jury was told that it was being empaneled anonymously to prevent press communication, no error in anonymous empanelment.
Telephone notes admitted on direct as present-sense impressions might have been hearsay, but harmless error.
Sentence did not inappropriately consider deft's political views.
No error in not grouping counts.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144375.P.pdf
Third Circuit: USA v. Jason Moreno
FRE, FRCrimP
Admission of written statements of investigating agent read into the record by a witness under the prior consistent statements hearsay exception violated the Confrontation Clause, but the error was harmless.
No plain error in the sentencing bump for 50 victims.
Prosecutor's unauthorized cross during allocution violated the common law right of allocution, and as it was contrary to the purposes of the relevant FRCrimP rule, the error was plain. Sentence vacated.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141568p.pdf
Admission of written statements of investigating agent read into the record by a witness under the prior consistent statements hearsay exception violated the Confrontation Clause, but the error was harmless.
No plain error in the sentencing bump for 50 victims.
Prosecutor's unauthorized cross during allocution violated the common law right of allocution, and as it was contrary to the purposes of the relevant FRCrimP rule, the error was plain. Sentence vacated.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141568p.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Stevenson Harrison
Hearsay in parole revocation hearing.
Where the District Court does not explicitly permit hearsay evidence at a parole revocation hearing, the appellate court can conduct a de novo review on the question if the factual record is sufficiently developed.
Where the costs of producing evidence at a parole revocation hearing are unduly burdensome and impractical, no abuse of discretion in admitting parole officer testimony and police reports.
Virginia statute of Malicious Bodily Injury to Law Enforcement Officer is categorically a Grade A/ violent offense.
Dissent - FRCrimP requires specific admission of hearsay as hearsay. Parole officer testimony derived from reading the police reports. Deft's corroborating statements limited to attempting to run away, and being grabbed by police officers, who subsequently ripped his shirt and fell down a flight of stairs. Subsequent alleged fracas unconfirmed.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151246P.pdf
Where the District Court does not explicitly permit hearsay evidence at a parole revocation hearing, the appellate court can conduct a de novo review on the question if the factual record is sufficiently developed.
Where the costs of producing evidence at a parole revocation hearing are unduly burdensome and impractical, no abuse of discretion in admitting parole officer testimony and police reports.
Virginia statute of Malicious Bodily Injury to Law Enforcement Officer is categorically a Grade A/ violent offense.
Dissent - FRCrimP requires specific admission of hearsay as hearsay. Parole officer testimony derived from reading the police reports. Deft's corroborating statements limited to attempting to run away, and being grabbed by police officers, who subsequently ripped his shirt and fell down a flight of stairs. Subsequent alleged fracas unconfirmed.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/12/151246P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)