In 1992, postal inspectors questioned the defendant regarding allegations that he had stolen mail from post office boxes; and he immediately confessed and agreed to make restitution. He was not indicted however for some two years after that confession; and during the intervening two years he was charged by state …

This case examines, once again, the authority of the courts to modify illegally imposed sentences after they have been imposed. Here, Judge Mukasey originally sentenced the defendant to 12 concurrent sentences of 78 months for wire fraud, even though the underlying statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343) specially provides that a …

Case held that because a sentence imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release is an authorized part of the original sentence, punishment for the later offense is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

If they really want you in jail, they will never give up! In his concurring opinion, Judge Oakes described this long running case against Wayne Hellman as an "inherent inequity". The defendant was originally charged in a seventy-eight count, twenty-four defendant indictment that charged "a myriad" of RICO and other …

The defendant in this case was convicted of both a drug crime and a gun charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); but the gun conviction was subsequently vacated based on the Bailey case. The case was remanded for resentencing. In a decision that marks one of the first forays by …

Here the Court noted that "only in the most extraordinary circumstances . . . will [the defense of duress] entitle the ex-felon to arm himself in advance of a crisis merely because he fears . . . that he is in serious danger." (Id. at 327).

Court remanded a sentence where a downward departure had been granted for voluntary disclosure of the offense due to inadequate findings by the district court.

This case is cited because it reviews one of the rarely discussed provisions of the Guidelines, namely § 5K2.16 - which permits a downward departure …

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit explores one of the parameters of the "safety-valve" provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5) in the context of a Government challenge to a reduction of a defendant's sentence. The Government argued that the defendant was ineligible for …

United States v. Abbell, 926 F.Supp. 1545 (S.D.Fla. 1996)
United States v. Camacho, 927 F.Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

These two cases graphically show the brazen nature of the Government's pattern of including many defendants in a single indictment (even though many of the defendants are not involved in the bulk …

Case held that after Bailey-type appeal, the court could amend the unchallenged portions of the sentence, as sentences were interdependent, pursuant its supervisory powers under 28 USC § 2106.

Oops! Here's another sentencing blooper case. In this case, Judge Wolin castigated the defendant at sentencing for her lack of remorse and for not having learned from her prior conviction and prison sentence. He then sentenced the defendant to the maximum Guidelines sentence of 168 months (14 years) for her …

After the defendant in this case was found guilty of certain drug crimes and of "using" a machine gun during the commission of a drug trafficking crime, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bailey v. U.S., 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) in which it redefined the meaning of the word …

In this case the court explained that under the theory of res gestae, evidence of prior crimes can be admitted when the prior crime is "so blended or connected with the one[s] on trial as that proof of one incidently involves the other[s]; or explains the circumstances thereof; or tends …

Although the court agreed that the district court did not have the power to correct a previously imposed sentence, even if wrong, it also held that the appeals court could remand for resentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1).

This case examines, once again, the authority of the courts to modify …

The defendant in this case was convicted of bank robbery, and at his sentencing the court increased his sentence by five levels, pursuant to the provisions of § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), because he "brandished, displayed, or possessed" a firearm. The defendant argued that the enhancement was improper because the "firearm" was an …

United States v. Forcelle, 86 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1996) (Judge Gibson)
United States v. Gerard, 926 F.Supp. 1351 (N.D.Ill. 1996) (Judge Castillo)

Here are two interesting cases that deal with Rule 404(b) of the Fed.R.Evid. In the Forcelle case the
defendant was convicted of mail fraud and interstate transportation …

Case upheld a conviction under § 666 even if municipality had received a construction grant several years before the offenses were committed.

This case shows just how easy it is for the Federal Government to seize primary responsibility for the prosecution of State crimes despite the Tenth Amendment, which pointedly …

Here the Court held that the admission of both gang membership evidence and evidence of threats, even if erroneous, did not warrant relief because any error was harmless.

This case contains one of the best analyses we have seen of the power of a court to modify a defendant's sentence on a § 2255 appeal following a successful Bailey-type challenge to his gun conviction.

One of the issues raised in this case was a claim that the trial court had violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights to a fair trial by refusing to permit him to argue to the jury about the punishment he would receive if convicted. In support of that position, he …

This case shows just how easy it is for the Federal Government to seize primary responsibility for the prosecution of State crimes despite the Tenth Amendment, which pointedly left criminal prosecution in the hands of the States because "locally elected prosecutors [are] more likely to respect the liberties of the …

United States v. Forcelle, 86 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 1996) (Judge Gibson)
United States v. Gerard, 926 F.Supp. 1351 (N.D.Ill. 1996) (Judge Castillo)

Here are two interesting cases that deal with Rule 404(b) of the Fed.R.Evid. In the Forcelle case the
defendant was convicted of mail fraud and interstate transportation …

Here the Court denied the motions for severance of six of 59 defendants were were charged in a single indictment, essentially agreeing that separate trials would result in an inefficient use of judicial time and resources.

United States v. Abbell, 926 F.Supp. 1545 (S.D.Fla. 1996)
United States v. Camacho, 927 …

At the time of his arrest the defendant in this case lied about his name and his age "to avoid being placed in an adult prison, not to avoid federal prosecution"; and his sentence was enhanced under § 3C1.1 because the trial court found that there was "a shift in …

Here the Court rejected a claim of sentencing factor manipulation in a case where a cooperating informant was instructed by the FBI to make a larger multi-kilo purchase of drugs from the defendant.

After making several controlled purchases of half-kilos of cocaine from the defendant, a cooperating informant was instructed …

This case reviews two common examples of how the Government obtains convictions by testing the limits
of Rule 403 of the Fed.R.Evid. That Rule, at least in theory, prohibits the use of evidence, even if relevant,
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. At …

This case examines, once again, the authority of the courts to modify illegally imposed sentences after they have been imposed. Here, Judge Mukasey originally sentenced the defendant to 12 concurrent sentences of 78 months for wire fraud, even though the underlying statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343) specially provides that a …

In this case the Ninth Circuit joins the Tenth Circuit in holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to motions made under Rule 41(e) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. The facts were the following: The Customs Service seized some records and the district court ruled that …

This case reviews two common examples of how the Government obtains convictions by testing the limits of Rule 403 of the Fed.R.Evid. That Rule, at least in theory, prohibits the use of evidence, even if relevant, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

At …