http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0205p-06.pdf
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0206p-06.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/17-30061.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-50439.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/16-17347.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/18/15-15791.pdf
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-3119.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201710189.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201712091.pdf
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/8AE80A6C0FBDFB7B8525830C004D863A/$file/16-1159-1751123.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.
Fifth Circuit: George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville
Insufficient connection between municipality's policies and the withholding of the evidence in this case; placing sole discretion in a single officer does not amount to deliberate indifference, and the officer's conduct was no worse than negligent.
Deft did not have a constitutional right to pre-plea-deal disclosure of exculpatory evidence in the possession of the government.
Concurrence: Federal District Court had obligation to allow challenges to potentially doctored pieces of evidence.
Concurrence: Brady is a trial right, waiveable at plea stage.
Dissent: Constitutional right.
Third Circuit: K. D. v. Downingtown Area School District
Student's free and appropriate public education was sufficient, since the student made reasonable progress, and there is no requirement that educational goals for disabled students ensure that they advance normally with their age cohort.
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173065p.pdf
http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173065p.pdf
Second Circuit: United States of America v. St. Juste (Paul)
Since the videotape of crime leaves no doubt as to what occurred, error for sentencing court to have held that the deft restrained the victims during the commission of the crime.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/doc/17-2702_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/doc/17-2702_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/2/hilite/
Second Circuit: United States v. Washington
Consent to polygraph testing as a condition of supervised release is onerous and not invariably part of similar sentences; the addition of the requirement in the written sentence after omitting it in the spoken sentence was therefore an impermissible modification.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/doc/17-2841_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/hilite/
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/doc/17-2841_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebd08708-88fc-4318-b2eb-94e7493863f0/1/hilite/
First Circuit: US v. Pineda Mateo
In conspiracy prosecutions, the government cannot compel the testimony of a co-conspirator spouse.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1857P-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1857P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Garcia-Ortiz (Corr.)
On page 17, line 4, the word "concurrent" is replaced with
"consecutive."
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405E-01A.pdf
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405E-01A.pdf
Federal Circuit: Dupont v. Synvina
A party asserting right of statutory appeal from the patent board doesn't have to establish specific threat of infringement litigation; rather, for standing, a party must establish a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality. A competitor's concrete plans for present and future activity that presents a risk of infringement suffice to establish standing.
Given range disclosed in prior art, presumption of obviousness insufficiently rebutted.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1977.Opinion.9-17-2018.pdf
Given range disclosed in prior art, presumption of obviousness insufficiently rebutted.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1977.Opinion.9-17-2018.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Smith v. Aldridge
State habeas determination that a judge's statement claiming that the jury was zealously watched was more credible than five juror affidavits asserting the jurors slept during the trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6149.pdf
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6149.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Nunies v. HIE Holdings
Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.
Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.
State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf
Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.
State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf
Casey Taylor v. Burlington North R.R.
Certified question & bench memo.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-35205.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-35205.pdf
Seventh Circuit: Patrick Hrobowski v. USA
As petitioner was sentenced according to four predicate offenses, two of which were facially infirm, a subsequent change in the law enabling a challenge to the other two predicates that was ultimately successful as to one of them does not allow a late challenge to the two infirm predicates.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:16-3549:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219599:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:16-3549:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219599:S:0
Seventh Circuit: Raul Perez-Gonzalez v. Jacqueline Lashbrook
State habeas determination that petitioner's plea deal did not implicitly waive the state's power to seek contempt sanctions for noncompliance was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or application of facts to law.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:18-1480:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219305:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:18-1480:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219305:S:0
Sixth Circuit: United States v. Joshua Pyles
As the arrest warrant for the owner of the car would have justified the stop if there had been a reasonable probability that she was in the car, police officer's initial statement that one passenger's gender was not clear suffices; later testimony that the officer believed all the passengers to be men is not sufficient contradiction to discount the narrative.
Sentencing court's taciturnity as to mental health factors did not rise to the level of procedural error.
Upward variance for criminal history was not an abuse of discretion.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0204p-06.pdf
Sentencing court's taciturnity as to mental health factors did not rise to the level of procedural error.
Upward variance for criminal history was not an abuse of discretion.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0204p-06.pdf
Fifth Circuit: Angela Roberson-King v. State of LA Workforce Cmsn
State law claim must be brought under the law granting the specific cause of action, as opposed to the more procedurally lenient general tort recovery statute.
Discrimination claim under the federal statute does not present an issue for trial when the candidate who actually got the promotion and the plaintiff are equally qualified; the business judgment of the employer is a sufficiently non-pretextual race-neutral justification.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30899-CV0.pdf
Discrimination claim under the federal statute does not present an issue for trial when the candidate who actually got the promotion and the plaintiff are equally qualified; the business judgment of the employer is a sufficiently non-pretextual race-neutral justification.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30899-CV0.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Russell
Where a juror omits information on a written questionnaire, and that information presents a valid basis for challenge for cause, waiver is not presumed when counsel do not question the unfinished written reply at voir dire; the juror misconduct is structural error when it results in the vote of a single potentially biased juror.
Juror's lack of disclosure of de minimis contact with witness whose credibility was not at issue was sufficiently investigated by a single consultation with witness; the juror did not have to be recalled.
Drug quantities appropriately established by amounts of fertilizer purchases.
Potential juror's dozing off was sufficient neutral reason to avoid Batson challenge.
Preemptively testifying to prior convictions on direct waives appeal against admission of the convictions.
Potentially improper statements in prosecution's closing were isolated and minor comments in a much larger web of evidence.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2386P-01A.pdf
Juror's lack of disclosure of de minimis contact with witness whose credibility was not at issue was sufficiently investigated by a single consultation with witness; the juror did not have to be recalled.
Drug quantities appropriately established by amounts of fertilizer purchases.
Potential juror's dozing off was sufficient neutral reason to avoid Batson challenge.
Preemptively testifying to prior convictions on direct waives appeal against admission of the convictions.
Potentially improper statements in prosecution's closing were isolated and minor comments in a much larger web of evidence.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2386P-01A.pdf
First Circuit: US v. Garcia-Ortiz
As there is no realistically probable scenario in which Hobbs Act robbery could be accomplished without the use or threatened use of force, the offense is a valid predicate.
Harmless error on not revisiting sentence after revision to guidelines during pendency of appeal; original sentencing court understood its discretion to have terms run concurrently or in sequence.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405P-01A.pdf
Harmless error on not revisiting sentence after revision to guidelines during pendency of appeal; original sentencing court understood its discretion to have terms run concurrently or in sequence.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405P-01A.pdf
The rest of the story
Today's other precedential opinions. (NB 3rd's website a bit flaky today on the chromebook)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40796-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60515-CV0.pdf
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:18-1060:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218850:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3216:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218849:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3080:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218677:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3080:J:Easterbrook:dis:T:fnOp:N:2218677:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-1631:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218685:S:0
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171135P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171677P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172231P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172232P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172399P.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/15-71666.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-15303.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-35742.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-35753.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-50413.pdf
-CB
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40796-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60515-CV0.pdf
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:18-1060:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218850:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3216:J:Manion:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218849:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3080:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218677:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-3080:J:Easterbrook:dis:T:fnOp:N:2218677:S:0
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-14/C:17-1631:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2218685:S:0
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171135P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/171677P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172231P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172232P.pdf
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/09/172399P.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/15-71666.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-15303.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-35742.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-35753.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/14/16-50413.pdf
-CB
Fifth Circuit: USA v. Christopher Vialva
A broad-based challenge to the integrity of the proceedings due to the incapacity of the judge is properly construed as a successive habeas filing rather than a motion to revisit the verdict, as the challenge doesn't arise from a cognizable procedural flaw in the earlier state trial, direct appeal or collateral proceedings. Where the impacts of the alleged incapacity have already been litigated, permission to file for te writ is appropriately denied.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-70008-CV0.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-70008-CV0.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)