In this case the First Circuit ruled that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the use of
evidence of a prior conviction of this Ku Klux Klan member. It held that there is a two-part test to determine
whether the admission of such evidence was proper ...

The defendant was charged and convicted of broad array of offenses that fell into two broad categories: 97 counts that related to misbranding and introducing adulterated foods into interstate commerce; and 4 counts that involved the filing of false corporate tax returns. He argued that under Rule 8(a) of the ...

One of the issues raised in this appeal was whether the defendants should be charged with the entire amount of fraud loss if factors other than their own fraud contributed to the failure of the bank involved. Citing its decision in U.S. v. Miller, 962 F.2d 739 (7th Cir. 1992), ...

In this case the First Circuit reversed a trial court decision to enhance a defendant's sentence for his role as a supervisor or organizer of one other participant. The Court noted that when less than five participants are involved, the evidence must support that the defendant "exercised control over these ...

While this case technically involves a constitutional challenge to the drug "school yard statute" (21 U.S.C. § 860(a)), the main issue addressed is whether a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a criminal statute is a jurisdictional question that can be raised at any time. Here, the defendant failed to ...

Case held that a person who possesses child pornography does not exploit a minor even though the materials "involved" the sexual exploitation of the minor by the producer.

This decision is a further amplification of the D.C. Circuit's important ruling in U.S. v. Smith, 77 F.3d 511 (D.C.Cir. 1996) about the prosecutor's duty, under the Brady rule, to disclose material information concerning its key witnesses. Here, the prosecutor failed to disclose that one of its chief witnesses, a ...

In this case, following Bailey, the Court held that "in order for a defendant to be convicted of 'carrying' a gun in violation of section 924(c)(1), the defendant must have transported the firearm on or about his or her person. . . . The means the firearm must have been ...

This is one of those rare cases in which a defendant appeals the court's decision not to grant him a downward departure for substantial assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 - and he wins. The defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud an automobile manufacturer and he signed ...

This decision contains a lengthy discussion of the proper standards for "grouping" of offenses under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b). The defendant had argued that the court erred when it failed to group his four pornography convictions, which resulted in a four level increase in his sentence. On appeal, the Third Circuit ...

Case held that defendant was not entitled to present evidence of harsh sentence he would receive if convicted since Federal juries perform no sentencing functions.

Two weeks ago, in Issue No. 18, we discussed the concept of jury nullification, and we quoted at great length some of Judge Wiseman's brilliant ...

Here the Court held that to qualify for a safety valve sentence reduction, the defendant must truthfully disclose all information about his crime "including the identities and participation of others" (Id., at 85-86).

This case shows clearly the difference between a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). First, relying on the Bailey case, the court reversed the convictions of two defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), because they were merely passengers in a car and ...

The sole question raised on this appeal was whether the defendant met the requirements set out both in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(4) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(4) and therefore was eligible for a "safety-valve" reduction of his sentence. He met all the other four requirements, but the district court denied him ...

The Court stated: "Estimates of the drug quantities attributable to the defen- dant are permissible, of course, so long as they are based on evidence possessing sufficient indicia of reliability and not 'nebulous eyeballing.' United States v. Henderson, 58 F.3d 1145, 1151 (7th Cir. 1995)." (id., at 1204).

It then ...

This is a fascinating decision, from a sharply divided Court, that explores whether a racially mixed couple, on trial in western Virginia on a money laundering charge arising out of the sale of marijuana, had the right to question prospective jurors during voir dire about any possible prejudice against interracial ...

See the Supreme Court's decision in Richardson v. U.S., Docket No. 97-8629 (6/1/99) which held that the jury must unanimously agree on the drug violations which constituted the "continuing series" that is the hallmark of the CCE offense.

Here the Court held that to convict a defendant under the "continuing ...

This case involves an appeal from a number of convictions by some Native Americans who were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy in furtherance of a scheme to transport tobacco from their reservation in Maine into Canada with intent to avoid Canadian excise duties and tax revenues. The First Circuit ...

This is a fascinating and important case from the Eleventh Circuit which addresses a number of heady issues and produces the strongest statement to date from that Circuit that civil forfeitures constitute "punishment." First the facts. The defendant, a citizen of the Bahamas, was arrested at the Palm Beach International ...

Case held that district court did not commit reversible error by failing to give defendant the right of allocution at resentencing hearing.

One of the defendants in this case had his sentence enhanced for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1, because he perjured himself while testifying for the Government at his codefendant's trial. On appeal, the Court reversed the enhancement, holding that the obstruction of justice enhancement applies only to the administration ...

Case held that the notification provisions of the N.Y. versions of Megan's Law were punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause and granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction.

One of the issues discussed in this case is the importance of and the origins of the defendant's right of allocution at sentencing, as set forth in Rule 32(A)(1)(c). In Footnote 5, the court cites several cases that stand for the proposition that a convicted defendant's right to be present ...

Case held that expert qualifications were not required before admitting testimony by undercover officer, that he had never seen drug dealers bring casual innocent observer to drug deal.

After a broad review of the concept of sentencing entrapment, the Court concluded that the Government had not engaged in such conduct and therefore the district court properly refused to grant a downward departure.

This case contains one of the better reviews of the status of the concept of "sentencing ...

In this case the Ninth Circuit vacated a sentence because the court had not properly determined whether the defendant and his counsel had the opportunity to read and discuss an amendment to the presentence report, in violation of Rule 32(c)(3) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. The sentencing in this case was originally ...

Court approved post-arrest rehabilitation efforts as a valid basis for a downward departure - but see USSG § 5K2.19, which became effective on 11/1/00 and which made post-sentencing rehabilitation a prohibited factor.

In this case the Government appealed from a two-level downward departure granted by the district court to take ...

This brief decision is noted because it contains some light, fun reading about a motion filed by a dismayed and thin-skinned U.S. Department of Justice which requested the D.C. Circuit to amend its earlier decision in U.S. v. Small, 74 F.3d 1276 (D.C.Cir. 1996). Seems that the image-conscious DOJ felt ...

One of the issues raised in this case was what it takes to "affect" a financial institution within the meaning of the nebulous provisions of U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6)(B). Pushing that word to its logical limits, the Court held that wire fraud committed by the business's own employee "affected a financial ...

Case held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a right held by the states and does not protect possession of a gun by a private citizen, so that plaintiff lacked standing to sue.

Case held that Rule 608 is subject to balancing test (under Rule 403) so that probative value of evidence is weighed against prejudicial effect for purposes of relevancy.

One of the issues raised on this appeal was that the trial court improperly limited cross-examination of a
witness under Rule 608(b) ...