Skip navigation

Punch and Jurists: March 18, 2013

Issue PDF
Volume 20, Number 6

In this issue:

  1. Johnson v. Williams, No. 11-465 (U.S. Supreme Court) (569 U.S. 289; 133 S.Ct. 1088) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Alito) (p None)
  2. Evans v. Michigan, No. 11-1327 (U.S. Supreme Court) (568 U.S. 313; 133 S.Ct. 1069) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Sotomayor) (p None)
  3. Henderson v. U.S., No. 11-9307 (U.S. Supreme Court) (568 U.S. 266; 133 S.Ct. 1121) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Breyer) (p None)
  4. Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414 (U.S. Supreme Court) (571 U.S. 12; 134 S.Ct. 10) (November 5, 2013) (Justice Alito) (p None)
  5. U.S. v. Leitch, No. 11-CR-00609 (JG) (E.D.N.Y.) ( F.Supp.2d ) (February 28, 2013) (Judge John Gleeson) (p None)
  6. U.S. v. Cotterman, No. 09-10139 (9th Cir.) (709 F.3d 952) (March 8, 2013) (Judge M. Margaret McKeown) (p None)
  7. U.S. v. Duris, No. 11-cr-573 (E.D.Pa.) (881 F.Supp.2d 675) (August 1, 2012) (Judge Magistrate) (p None)

Johnson v. Williams, No. 11-465 (U.S. Supreme Court) (569 U.S. 289; 133 S.Ct. 1088) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Alito)

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 ...

Evans v. Michigan, No. 11-1327 (U.S. Supreme Court) (568 U.S. 313; 133 S.Ct. 1069) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Sotomayor)

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 ...

Henderson v. U.S., No. 11-9307 (U.S. Supreme Court) (568 U.S. 266; 133 S.Ct. 1121) (February 20, 2013) (Justice Breyer)

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 ...

Burt v. Titlow, No. 12-414 (U.S. Supreme Court) (571 U.S. 12; 134 S.Ct. 10) (November 5, 2013) (Justice Alito)

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 ...

U.S. v. Leitch, No. 11-CR-00609 (JG) (E.D.N.Y.) ( F.Supp.2d ) (February 28, 2013) (Judge John Gleeson)

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 ...

U.S. v. Cotterman, No. 09-10139 (9th Cir.) (709 F.3d 952) (March 8, 2013) (Judge M. Margaret McKeown)

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 ...

U.S. v. Duris, No. 11-cr-573 (E.D.Pa.) (881 F.Supp.2d 675) (August 1, 2012) (Judge Magistrate)

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 ...