Timothy Arnett was arrested after robbing a bank in Medford, OR. He then confessed to several additional bank robberies in California. He was eventually indicted in both Oregon and California on a total of eight counts of bank robbery and eight counts of using a firearm during a crime of ...

The inmate-plaintiff in this case, acting pro se, appealed an order from the District Court for the Eastern District of New York's dismissing the claims he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The appeal raised issues as ...

This case is noted for its current and very comprehensive review of some of the critical Confrontation Clause issues involved in the field of child sex crime cases - one of the fastest growing categories of crimes in America. The petitioner in this case, Richard Bugh, was convicted in 1989 ...

This case is noted for its lively discussion of an important jurisdictional issue regarding 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) - the statute that makes it a Federal crime to bribe state and local government officials, provided only that the person being bribed works for a government or agency that receives at ...

Here, stating that “opportunity and access do not equate to authority,” the Tenth Circuit vacated an abuse of position of trust sentence enhancement of a defendant who worked in the accounting department of her employer from whom she embezzled funds.

In this case, stating that “opportunity and access do not ...

Here the Court held that a six year delay between the defendant’s arrest and his indictment did violate his speedy trial rights because, even though he fled the jurisdiction, the Government was grossly negligent in failing to investigate his whereabouts.

Here the Court held that a six year delay between ...

Here the Court held that, “while a defendant seeking safety valve relief is not obliged to submit to an interview with the Government, . . . a defendant who declines to offer himself for a debriefing takes a very dangerous course".

One of the defendants in this case, Cesar Alarcon-Garcia, ...

The defendant in this case, Humberto Cruz Alvarado (“Cruz”), was convicted of a drug crime; and he was sentenced to the applicable five-year mandatory minimum sentence. On appeal, Cruz argued that the district court had erred in ruling that he was not eligible for a “safety valve” exception to the ...

Here the Court ordered a new trial for a defendant convicted of murder after finding that his Confrontation Clause rights had been violated when he was denied the right to cross-examine the lone eye-witness to the crime out of fear for his safety.

In 1996, Richard Cotto, the petitioner in ...