In this case, the Ninth Circuit joined with the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the Feeney Amendment, which was enacted as part of the so called “PROTECT Act of 2003” is retroactive, and does not violate ex post facto laws and has, as a result, reversed ...

This decision represents the latest rejection by the courts of the frequent challenges by criminal defendants to the admissibility and use at trial of statements made by such defendants during plea bargain sessions. Rule 410 of the Fed.R.Evid. generally bars the introduction of statements made by a defendant during proffer ...

Here, shortly after the defendant was indicted in Binghamton, NY for conspiracy to distribute marijuana, he was indicted again by another grand jury in Albany, NY on another charge of a drug conspiracy. The two indictments appeared to differ in 3 respects: (a) the timing of the origination of the ...

Here the Court categorically held that a district court may grant a downward departure in cases where the defendant has exhibited truly exceptional rehabilitation, even when the defendant does not accept responsibility and even after § 5K2.19.

While there may never be a set of circumstances that will meet the ...

After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London denied defendant's motions to suppress and dismiss, defendant pled guilty to, inter alia, possessing firearms in relation to a drug trafficking crime and possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced. Defendant challenged the denial ...

In a ruling that marks one of the first court decisions to declare an important part of the post-9/11 antiterrorism statute unconstitutional, Judge Collins held that certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act [“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Act] were unconstitutional ...

This case raised two issues of first impression for the First Circuit, namely whether interstate commercial trucking is a pervasively regulated industry, and if so, whether the regulatory scheme applicable to that industry comes within the purview of the administrative search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The Court ...

Here a divided panel held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited the retrial of the prisoner/defendant on charges of aggravated felony murder, since he had previously been acquitted of the lesser included offense of intentional murder.

In December, 2002, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced that it was changing its long-standing policy regarding the placement of inmates in halfway houses (or, as they are more officially called, in “community correction centers” or “CCCs”). Based on a “reinterpretation” of the applicable statutes, the BOP decided that ...

Here the Court held that the defendant FBI agents who were accused of “framing” the defendant are not entitled to qualified immunity in a civil rights suit for damages because, prior to the actions that gave rise to this case, it was well established that investigators who withhold exculpatory evidence ...

Appellants, federal government officials (Government), sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland, which granted habeas corpus relief to appellee, a citizen of Vietnam who was a deportable criminal alien. The district court found that incarceration for 18 months ...

In the instant case the appellant was convicted and sentenced for his illegal re-entry after deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). As a result of his previously deportation for committing an aggravated felony (burglary with intent to commit aggravated assault), he was facing a guideline range of ...

This case presented the Supreme Court with the opportunity to decide whether statements obtained from a criminal defendant who was read his rights under Miranda v. Arizona could be introduced as substantive evidence against the defendant if the police originally obtained the substance of the statement from the defendant in ...

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to address yet another technical question arising under one of the most contentious provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), namely 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). That provision allows federal courts to overturn state court legal decisions only ...