Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
In another of a long line of decisions interpreting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the Supreme Court has once again chosen to adopt a rule of construction that most severely restricts the circumstances under which a Federal habeas court may grant relief to a state ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
In Yeager v. U.S., 557 U.S. 110, 118 (2009), Justice Stevens wrote:
"Our cases have recognized that the [Double Jeopardy] Clause embodies two vitally important interests. The first is the 'deeply ingrained' principle that 'the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
Rule 52(b) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. provides that “[a] plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered [by an appellate court] even though it was not brought to the [trial] court’s attention.” However, Rule 52(b) does not explicitly state as of what time the error must be “plain.” The absence ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
It is probably fitting that, in its first full criminal law opinion of its current Term, the Supreme Court chose to address another of the seemingly endless stream of esoteric questions that arise under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). And, to solidify and reaffirm its ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
Of late, Judge Gleeson has been a highly-vocal and persuasive advocate of a number of major reforms in the bloated, costly and often absurdly unjust Federal sentencing system. He started with his unpublished decision in U.S. v. Vasquez, 2010 WL 1257359 (E.D.N.Y. March 30, 2010) (P&J, 04/19/10), where he openly ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
Here the Ninth Circuit became the first Circuit Court of Appeals to hold that Border Patrol agents need reasonable suspicion to conduct deep searches of computers and similar digital devices seized at the border due to the invasive nature of the search.
In this “watershed” en banc decision, the Ninth ...
Loaded on
March 18, 2013
published in Punch and Jurists
March 18, 2013
This case is noted for its discussion of a little used and somewhat mysterious Federal statute, the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”), which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3607. As explained by Magistrate Judge Rice in the instant case, the FFOA “permits first-time, misdemeanor drug offenders to avoid the ...