Rare case which affirmed verdict against prison officials and punitive damage award for use of excessive force against inmate.

Case held that a defendant was not "in custody" of federal agents when they met him at aiport, transported him to his probation officer and then interrogated him, so he was not entitled to any Miranda warnings.

United States v. Howard, 115 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1997) (Judge Wilkinson)
United …

At the time the searches in dispute in this case were carried out, the defendant/appellant McFarland was on parole from a California prison, subject to this condition: "You and your residence and any property under your control may be searched without a warrant at any time by any agent of …

In this case the defendant argued that the district court erred in imposing a sixteen-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(2) (1995), contending that the term "aggravated felony" as used in that section does not include his Florida felony conviction for purchasing marijuana, as that offense would have …

Case held that exculpatory affidavits from co-defendants who did not testify at trial because they exercised their Fifth Amendment rights were "newly discovered evidence" for purposes of Rule 33.

Rule 33 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. authorizes a district court to grant a new trial "if required in the interests of justice", …

Case held that Supreme Court's decision in Bailey did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and thus may not form the basis for a second or successive petition under 28 USC § 2255.

United States v. Howard, 115 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1997) (Judge Wilkinson)
United States v. Guimond, 116 F.3d 166 (6th Cir. 1997) (Judge Norris)

According to the latest Government statistics, during 1995 law enforcement agencies made more than 15 million arrests for criminal infractions, excluding traffic violations. (See, the FBI's …

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - The evils of lengthy judicial delays in criminal proceedings.

"Delay haunts the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the unjustly accused. It crowds the dockets of the courts, increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to take …

Case held that probation condition requiring probationer to attend AAA meetings would violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Joining nine other Circuits, the Court holds that claims of ineffective assustance of counsel may not be brought under the guise of Rule 33's "newly discovered evidence" prong.

Case held that the "newly discovered evidence" exception to bars on second and successive motions apply only to challenges to the underlying conviction and is not available to support claimed sentencing error.

Here the Court held that post-offense rehabilitation efforts, including post-conviction rehabilitation efforts, may constitute a sufficient basis for a downward sentence departure, provided the efforts are so exceptional as to remove the case from the particular heartland in which the acceptance of responsibility guideline was intended to appy. The district …

Court granted motion to expunge a 27 year old conviction of a now-repealed marijuana tax statute.

They never let go. In 1970, this John Doe, then a minor, was arrested and charged with failing to pay a special tax on imported marijuana in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 4755(a)(1), a …

Case held that evidence that defendant had robbed other banks several months earlier was admissible for the purposes of establishing "modus operandi.".

Alerted by a suspicious American Airlines agent, DEA officials stopped a "very nervous" passenger getting off a plane in California, and seized $49,576 he was carrying in a locked bag. The passenger was never charged with any crime, but the Government moved to forfeit the money under 21 U.S.C. § …

The Tenth Circuit reversed a substantial downward departure granted in numerous grounds including doubts about the witnesses' credibility, the strength of the evidence about the defendant's intent and proof of the interstate elements of the crime.

Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159 (4th Cir. 1997) (En Banc) (Judge Wilkinson)
Estate of Davis by Ostenfeld v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388 (8th Cir. 1997) (Judge Tunheim)

Both of these cases deal with an issue that most people want to ignore - the use of excessive force against prisoners. …

This case is noted in part because it discussed at length an April 28, 1995 memorandum issued by Attorney-General Reno, entitled "Deportation of Criminal Aliens", which authorizes U.S. Attorneys to agree to a one or two level departure from the applicable Guidelines sentencing range in exchange for the defendant's admission …

Case held that Fourth Amendment did not extend protection from excessive force to pretrial detainees.

Perhaps sparked by growing criticism that the formalities of sentencing hearings are a charade to mask the reality of "assembly line justice" (see, U.S. v. Barnes, 948 F.2d 325, 331 (7th Cir. 1991), there has been a flurry of recent decisions reaffirming, at least academically, the sanctity of those formalities. …

Eighth Circuit upholds the constitutionality of the Child Recovery Support Act [now known as the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act) and holds that venue was proper in the district where the child who is entitled to receive the support resided.

United States v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997)
United …

In this case, the defendant, president and largest shareholder of a small engineering and surveying firm,
was convicted of tax evasion arising from his diversion of a substantial amount of money nominally due the firm into his personal bank accounts and failure to report the money as income on his …

United States v. Bailey, 115 F.3d 1222 (5th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997)

Both of these cases address constitutional challenges to the Child Recovery Support Act (18 U.S.C. § 228) (CRSA), now known as the "Deadbeat Dad Statute." The CRSA criminalizes the willful …

Rule 33 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. authorizes a district court to grant a new trial "if required in the interests of justice", provided the defendant files such a motion within 7 days after the verdict, unless the motion is based on newly discovered evidence in which case the morion must be …

Case held that the "newly discovered evidence" exception to bars on second and successive motions apply only to challenges to the underlying conviction and is not available to support claimed sentencing error.

Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484 (9th Cir. 1997) (En Banc) (Judge Thomas)
In Re Vial, 115 F.3d …

Case held that a defendant was not "in custody" of federal agents when they met him at aiport, transported him to his probation officer and then interrogated him, so he was not entitled to any Miranda warnings.

Can a defendant file a Rule 33 motion on the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? Generally not. In this case, the D.C. Circuit joins nine other Circuits in holding that "an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may not serve as the basis for a new trial …

Court held that a sentence is "imposed" when it is pronounced orally at the sentencing hearing; and it thereafter be only be corrected within 7 days for artithemetical, technical or other clear errors.

Case held that, even when the district court departs downward, it must explain why it selected a particular sentence when the Guideline range exceeded 24 months; and the failure to do so required vacation of the sentence.

Perhaps sparked by growing criticism that the formalities of sentencing hearings are a …

In this case, Judge Gertner (who never disappoints) rejected a Government motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(E), to utilize an expert witness at trial. After noting that the prosecution was more than two years old and that the Government had waited until seventeen days before trial to make its motion, Judge …

Speedy justice? Not for Robert Rodriquez. He was convicted in 1983 of various crimes, and he promptly filed a notice of appeal. "On September 23, 1991, seven years and eight months after he filed his notice of appeal, the [New York State] Appellate Division affirmed Rodriquez's conviction." (Id., at 64). …

In this mildly surprising decision, the Fourth Circuit held that the Government had failed to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction for using or possessing a gun during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense.

In this case, a government informant went to a drug source with the …

The defendant in this case was denied his right to appeal his criminal conviction "because he could not afford to obtain, and the State of Maryland refused to provide, a trial transcript which was necessary to perfect his appeal." (Id., at 1144). The reason that Maryland refused to provide the …

Last week we noted with some trepidation that the Government is rapidly moving to expand the contours "other crimes" evidence through the introduction of "modus operandi" evidence that it says helps to demonstrate a defendant's "distinctive method of operation."

In this case, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that: "Although Rule 404(b) …

There is perhaps no area of the law that is more confusing today than the all important issue of whether a court can amend a sentence once it has been imposed. Until a few years ago, it was safe to say that once a sentence was imposed that sentence could …

Case held that Fourth Amendment did not extend protection from excessive force to pretrial detainees.

Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159 (4th Cir. 1997) (En Banc) (Judge Wilkinson)
Estate of Davis by Ostenfeld v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388 (8th Cir. 1997) (Judge Tunheim)

Both of these cases deal with an …

Here the Court held: "[E]ven if the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations could be said to create individual rights (as opposed to setting out the rights and obligations of signatory nations), it certainly does not create constitutional rights. Although states may have an obligation under the Supremacy Clause to comply …

In face of a constitutional challenge to Rule 414, the Cour held that under the facts of the case admission of prior crimes evidence was not so prejudicial as to violate the defendant's rights to a fair trial.