Here the Court held that the district court had erred in dismissing a § 1983 lawsuit on the grounds that it had been filed late, concluding that he should have been granted equitable estoppel as a matter of “fundamental practicality and fairness".

The plaintiff in this case, Oscar Jones, appealed ...

In this case the Fifth Circuit granted a new trial based primarily on its finding that the prosecution had violated its duty under Brady v. Maryland, 272 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing favorable material evidence, thereby undermining confidence in the jury's verdict. The decision may not, however, be a representative ...

In a case of first impression for the Fifth Circuit, the Court rejected the defendant’s contention that drugs held for personal use should not be used to calculate his sentence because they were not part of the conspiracy for which he was convicted. Citing similar rulings from the First, Sixth, ...

After the defendant was convicted of various drug crimes, he appealed, arguing that the government failed to disclose material impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 272 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Court agreed, finding that the Government had wrongly suppressed ...

Here the Third Circuit granted habeas relief from a twelve-year-old conviction in a nearly thirty-year-old murder case, based on the prosecution’s failure to disclose to the defense 21 police reports in violation of the precepts of Brady v. Maryland, 272 U.S. 83 (1963). The defendant, Steven Slutzger, wasn’t even charged ...

Prison Legal News (PLN) has won another victory in one of its many challenges to prison regulations designed to restrict the distribution of its monthly publication to inmates. The Kansas Department of Corrections barred inmates from receiving books, newspapers and magazines from family members and friends; and then imposed a ...

The defendant in this case appealed his sentence for attempted entry into the United States after having been deported, arguing that the district court had erred by not recognizing its discretion to grant a separate criminal history departure based on the minor nature of the underlying offense. In describing the ...

In this case the Second Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s landmark Confrontation Clause ruling in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) could not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review since it did not qualify as he type of “watershed” rule that the Supreme Court envisaged in ...

Reversing a lower court decision, the panel upheld a critical provision of the antiterrorism laws that permit the Government to designate organizations as "foreign terrorist organizations" without giving advance notice and an opportunity to contest.

Two years ago, in U.S. v. Rahmani, 209 F.Supp.2d 1045 (C.D.Cal. 2002) (P&J, 06/17/02), Judge ...

After the Government moved for the forced use of antipsychotic medication on the defendant to render him competent to stand trial, the magistrate judge routinely concluded that the use of such medication was substantially likely to render the defendant capable of standing trial. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, stating: ...

This case is noted for Judge M. Margaret McKeown's dissent, which she began by stating: “The bedrock principles of our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence require that a state's capital sentencing scheme must ‘genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.’ Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877, 77 ...

The principal question presented in this case was “whether, upon the government's motion for a downward departure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), a district court can impose a sentence below the Guideline range even though the defendant is subject to a statutory minimum sentence that exceeds the Guideline range.” ...

In this ruling, Judge Gertner set forth Additional Findings in Support of her previous Order (reported at 343 F.Supp.2d 23) in which she directed that there be two separate juries in this capitl case - one for the guilt phase and one for the penalty phase.

Here both the majority and dissenting judges acknowledged the serious problem of alcohol abuse on Indian reservations, but they failed to take any meaningful steps to deal with that problem at sentencing - other than to accuse each other of ignoring it.

First, the setting. In its opening paragraph, the ...

The defendant claimed that the Government violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 272 U.S. 83 (1963) by failing to disclose before trial that it had promised financial assistance to its key prosecution witness for her testimony. In rejecting that claim, the Court stated:

“The government made its ...

Here, over a strong dissent from Judge Sloviter, a divided panel from the Third Circuit affirmed a four-level downward departure for a white collar millionaire criminal based on his “good works” - a ground that is discouraged under the Guidelines.

The defendant in this case, Fred Cooper, the former CEO ...

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed an indictment charging defendants with knowingly and willfully conspiring to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). The district court held that the terrorist designation statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1189, ...