Description of the investigation to this point and agent's general expertise established sufficient necessity for the wiretap order.
Insufficient evidence for money-laundering conviction, as the vehicle purchase was open, and there was insufficient evidence of intentionally promoting the illegal activity.
Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, despite unreliable witness.
Deft decision not to testify waived challenge to ruling that he could be impeached on cross with prior conviction.
Each member of the conspiracy must have sufficient knowledge or foreseeable understanding of drug amounts triggering mandatory minimums for those minimums to apply. Circuit split flagged.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/CF9C2E37DB18AFB9852582AD015-306054B206/$file/0-1736057.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 FRE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FRE. Show all posts
Fourth Circuit: Plaintiffs Appealing CMO 100 v. Pfizer
No error in exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert where statistician performed a wide range of analyses to verify the legitimacy of the analysis, but excluded the other tests from testimony, and further impermissibly used an indicator for the medical condition as evidence of the medical condition.
No error in exclusion of second expert where stepped dosage conclusions were impermissibly based on conclusions as to lowest dosage that were based on a statistically insignificant association, since this manner of analysis is not generally accepted.
No error in exclusion of third expert, as differential diagnosis methodology did not sufficiently account for alternative causation.
Deft admissions almost never sufficient basis to survive summary judgment, where the claim is too complex for the average juror.
Summary judgment grant across the MDL was an appropriate use of judicial resources.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171140.P.pdf
No error in exclusion of second expert where stepped dosage conclusions were impermissibly based on conclusions as to lowest dosage that were based on a statistically insignificant association, since this manner of analysis is not generally accepted.
No error in exclusion of third expert, as differential diagnosis methodology did not sufficiently account for alternative causation.
Deft admissions almost never sufficient basis to survive summary judgment, where the claim is too complex for the average juror.
Summary judgment grant across the MDL was an appropriate use of judicial resources.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171140.P.pdf
Third Circuit: USA v. Christopher Welshans
Where deft stipulated to the prohibited content, error to admit prejudicial videos and refer to them in closing, but no Due Process violation given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Deft's deletion of files upon learning that the police were on the way was sufficiently contemporaneous with arrest to qualify for the Obstruction sentencing enhancement, but as the files were simply moved to the recycle file, there was no material hindrance.
Concur/Dissent: Actions upon learning of investigation are not sufficiently contemporaneous with arrest.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164106p.pdf
Deft's deletion of files upon learning that the police were on the way was sufficiently contemporaneous with arrest to qualify for the Obstruction sentencing enhancement, but as the files were simply moved to the recycle file, there was no material hindrance.
Concur/Dissent: Actions upon learning of investigation are not sufficiently contemporaneous with arrest.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164106p.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Leslie Grussing v. Orthopedic and Sports Medicine
No error in trial court's refusal to allow questioning of an expert on a line of inquiry that had been established by another witness.
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
In a diversity action, federal law governs the review of counsel statements in closing arguments.
Given curative instruction, deft counsel's mis-characterization of the burden of proof was not plainly injurious.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172228P.pdf
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Richard Evans
No plain error in conviction where the procedures of the medical practice were the subject of testimony and the link to the individual cases in the indictment was merely the patients' medical files.
Finder of fact might reasonably have found the non-narcotics elements of the medical practice to be cookie-cutter and superficial cover for the actual work of the practice.
Even absent a showing as to the amount of "clean money" in a commingled account, no plain error in the aggregation of all withdrawals in computing the total amount of withdrawals to determine if the amount withdrawn must necessarily have included the criminal proceeds.
No plain error in mail fraud conviction where finder of fact might have found an implied promise in the patient communications of a proper standard of care.
Witness' opinion of illicit nature of practice sufficiently based in commonsensical inference.
Arguendo, if Confrontation Clause was violated by not allowing deft to cross after prosecution assertion in direct that witness (who had been notified that she was a target of an investigation) was not a suspect; testimony was cumulative.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20159-CR0.pdf
Finder of fact might reasonably have found the non-narcotics elements of the medical practice to be cookie-cutter and superficial cover for the actual work of the practice.
Even absent a showing as to the amount of "clean money" in a commingled account, no plain error in the aggregation of all withdrawals in computing the total amount of withdrawals to determine if the amount withdrawn must necessarily have included the criminal proceeds.
No plain error in mail fraud conviction where finder of fact might have found an implied promise in the patient communications of a proper standard of care.
Witness' opinion of illicit nature of practice sufficiently based in commonsensical inference.
Arguendo, if Confrontation Clause was violated by not allowing deft to cross after prosecution assertion in direct that witness (who had been notified that she was a target of an investigation) was not a suspect; testimony was cumulative.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20159-CR0.pdf
Eighth Circuit: James Dean v. Burdette Searcey
Holding of prior panel is binding circuit precedent, in addition to law of the case.
Where the principal agent in the theory of municipal liability is exonerated at trial, municipality may still be liable under the theory that the principal actor was exonerated in his functional role, but held to be culpable in his managerial and policymaking role.
Sufficient evidence to support earlier interlocutory holdings on qualified immunity.
Statements and visual aids in opening and closing that referenced innocence of plaintiffs were not unduly prejudicial.
No error in reckless investigation jury instruction that referenced reckless gathering of unreliable evidence, as it does not suggest the lesser threshold of negligence.
"Pled."
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164059P.pdf
Where the principal agent in the theory of municipal liability is exonerated at trial, municipality may still be liable under the theory that the principal actor was exonerated in his functional role, but held to be culpable in his managerial and policymaking role.
Sufficient evidence to support earlier interlocutory holdings on qualified immunity.
Statements and visual aids in opening and closing that referenced innocence of plaintiffs were not unduly prejudicial.
No error in reckless investigation jury instruction that referenced reckless gathering of unreliable evidence, as it does not suggest the lesser threshold of negligence.
"Pled."
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/164059P.pdf
DC Circuit: US v. Benjamin Grey
Absent a limiting instruction, possibly prejudicial testimony as to previous civil judgment(s?) was inadmissible hearsay and plain error -- but insufficient for reversal.
Prior bad acts were sufficiently contemporaneous to be probative of intent as to the charged crimes.
No need to remand to develop ineffective assistance claim, given evidence of guilt.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7D8985C55A9B312B852582A60052550E/$file/14-3003.pdf
Prior bad acts were sufficiently contemporaneous to be probative of intent as to the charged crimes.
No need to remand to develop ineffective assistance claim, given evidence of guilt.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/7D8985C55A9B312B852582A60052550E/$file/14-3003.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: US v. Wenxia Man
Conspiracy requiring a third participant is sufficiently well-developed if the others are planning to find an alternative to agreement with the necessary participant
Deft's awareness of illegal nature of the weapons sale activity evinced sufficient specific intent to violate the licensing requirements of the Act.
Eagerness to do the transaction and the delicate and furtive nature of the conversations established sufficient evidence for the finding that deft was predisposed to the crime and therefore not entrapped.
Co-conspirator hearsay properly admitted. Court could properly find an unidentified email address a co-conspirator. Admission of contemporaneous uncharged bad acts proper, as sufficiently entwined.
Sentence reasonable -- deft's US presence made her invaluable; no discriminatory error in court's sentencing finding that deft was faithful to her native country.
No plain error in Brady violation, given insufficient record/proffer.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201615635.pdf
Deft's awareness of illegal nature of the weapons sale activity evinced sufficient specific intent to violate the licensing requirements of the Act.
Eagerness to do the transaction and the delicate and furtive nature of the conversations established sufficient evidence for the finding that deft was predisposed to the crime and therefore not entrapped.
Co-conspirator hearsay properly admitted. Court could properly find an unidentified email address a co-conspirator. Admission of contemporaneous uncharged bad acts proper, as sufficiently entwined.
Sentence reasonable -- deft's US presence made her invaluable; no discriminatory error in court's sentencing finding that deft was faithful to her native country.
No plain error in Brady violation, given insufficient record/proffer.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201615635.pdf
Tenth Circuit: US v. Miller
Admission of expert testimony that did not clearly distinguish civil malpractice from criminal behavior was not an abuse of discretion.
Sufficient evidence where deft expert offers the only clear guidance on threshold of criminality, and court follows indications of another expert.
Indictment alleging dispensing of controlled substances by transaction as opposed to by substance not defective; additionally, would be harmless error as elements of the offense were identical. No error in allowing conviction on theory of multiple dispensation where the crime is single dispensation.
Absent curative instruction, plain error in constructive amendment of indictment when, during testimony at trial, prosecution witness alleged a second false statement.
Given the procedures used, state administrative vacatur did not make a prior suspension of medical license a legal nullity.
Sentence challenge moot, as already served.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1231.pdf
Sufficient evidence where deft expert offers the only clear guidance on threshold of criminality, and court follows indications of another expert.
Indictment alleging dispensing of controlled substances by transaction as opposed to by substance not defective; additionally, would be harmless error as elements of the offense were identical. No error in allowing conviction on theory of multiple dispensation where the crime is single dispensation.
Absent curative instruction, plain error in constructive amendment of indictment when, during testimony at trial, prosecution witness alleged a second false statement.
Given the procedures used, state administrative vacatur did not make a prior suspension of medical license a legal nullity.
Sentence challenge moot, as already served.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-1231.pdf
Tenth Circuit: United States v. Tapaha
Testimony of prior bad acts properly excluded as speculative and duplicative; given the circumstances of the assault, self-defense claim would not have been bolstered.
No error in denial of cross on own witness, absent court's finding of adversity.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report under prior consistent statements exception where fabrication wasn't alleged until prosecution's closing.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report to impeach, as police testimony only referred to deft's actions on the date of the offense, and not prior events.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2104.pdf
No error in denial of cross on own witness, absent court's finding of adversity.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report under prior consistent statements exception where fabrication wasn't alleged until prosecution's closing.
No error in refusal to admit parts of the police report to impeach, as police testimony only referred to deft's actions on the date of the offense, and not prior events.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-2104.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Melendez-Gonzales
AUMF for the War of Terror sufficed for statutory tolling of the statute of limitations; the indictment might otherwise have been untimely.
Court's instruction that a group of visitors not attend in full military dress did not, for constitutional purposes, close the courtroom. Challenge to court's subsequent mention in jury instructions waived for not being raised below.
Prosc. witness description of "fraud" not unfairly prejudicial, possible hearsay harmless error.
Sentencing bumps, including uncharged conduct, established by preponderance; longer sentence for deft convicted of fewer counts not unreasonable.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1084P-01A.pdf
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Stoney End of Horn
Crim, FRE, Hearsay
Sufficient evidence despite inconsistencies, as inconsistencies could have been raised in cross-examination.
Error to admit hearsay, as external corroboration is not an indicium of speaker's truthfulness. Harmless error, given corroboration.
No abuse of discretion in upward departure in sentencing.
United States v. Stoney End of Horn
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Marcus Eason
FRE, Crim
No abuse of discretion in barring police videotape on cross, as it would be impeachment on a collateral matter, or on recall, as the prosecution hadn't been given a copy and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.
No abuse of discretion in barring deft's crime scene photos, as prosecution hadn't been given a copy, and the omission didn't impact deft's substantial rights.
Sufficient evidence on possession charge.
United States v. Marcus Eason
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. Ortiz-Islas
Souter, Crim, Conspiracy, FRE, Sentencing
Plan to sell drugs in the jurisdiction was a second plan within the same conspiracy, as opposed to a second conspiracy.
Post-indictment evidence was sufficiently probative to be allowed.
Courts potential assignment of minimum sentence was at most harmless error.
No abuse of discretion in disparate sentences for co-conspirators.
US v. Ortiz-Islas
DC Circuit: USA v. Gerry Burnett
Fourth Amendment, FRE, Sentencing, Conspiracy
Probable cause for search and stop of car, given GPS data and ongoing investigation, despite the fact that the trip was atypical.
Accidentally destroyed evidence was in no way exculpatory.
Given association of the defts outside the house, reliance on GPS data from inside of a house to establish probable cause was not constitutional error.
Admission of prior bad acts harmless.
Calculation of drug amounts included some from before one deft joined the conspiracy -- remanded for resentencing.
USA v. Gerry Burnett
DC Circuit: USA v. Henry Williams
FRE, Fourth Amendment, FRCrimP, Sentencing
Undisclosed investigations didn't make wiretap/ wiretap application unlawful.
Lay expert testimony by agent constituted sufficient error for reversal.
Sufficient evidence for retrial.
Guilty plea not unconstitutionally compelled due to requirement that a codeft plead guilty.
Acquited conduct properly considered in sentencing.
USA v. Henry Williams
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Demetrius Colbert
Crim, Fourth Amendment, FRE, Conspiracy, Sentencing
Sufficient showing of alternative means before wiretap.
Connection to the person sufficed for search warrant for house.
No abuse of discretion in refusing to allow evidence of circumstances in a similar police search.
Conspiracy counts appropriately joined to firearms counts, as they arose from same conspiracy.
Sufficient evidence.
Life sentence procedurally & substantively reasonable.
United States v. Demetrius Colbert
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Colin Boone
FRE
No abuse of discretion in admission of prior misconduct by police officer -- however distant in time, it was relevant to determining the required intent in the present action.
United States v. Colin Boone
Eighth Circuit: United States v. Santana Drapeau
FRE, Tribe Law
No plain error/abuse of discretion in allowing testimony on priors, since there was no proof of prejudice given the curative instruction, and the testimony might somehow have been relevant.
Uncounseled tribal court convictions are valid predicates
United States v. Santana Drapeau
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)