Case held that for purposes of mandatory minimum statute there is no difference between D- and L-types methamphetamine.

Citing U.S. v. Saldana, 109 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 1997), the defendant argued that he should have received a downward departure based on the Government's delay in waiting till he had completed a 33 month state sentence before he was indicted.

The Court rejected that argument noting that "nothing in ...

Here, the Court rejected the defense argument that the amount of loss should not include the alleged "losses" attributable to checks that were deposited with a Government shell corporation in a sting operation. His argument was that no loss was capable of occurring as a matter of law; and in ...

For years, the courts have delicately skirted the infamous practices of sentencing entrapment and its cousin, sentencing factor manipulation. Sentencing entrapment occurs "when the government causes a defendant initially predisposed to commit a lesser crime to commit a more serious crime"; whereas sentencing factor manipulation occurs "when the government engages ...

Relying on Burns v. U.S., 501 U.S. 1 (1991), the Court vacated a 72 month departure for an unusually cruel and heinous crime, because the defendant was never given any notice of the departure.

This case helps explain why Judge Learned Hand once described the conspiracy laws of our country as "the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery." Harrison v. United States, 7 F.2d 259, 263 (2nd Cir. 1925).

The precise issue before the Court in this case was a Government motion to admit ...

The defendant in this case argued that a prior assault and battery conviction should not have been counted in deciding his career offender status, because neither violence, nor the use of force, was an essential element of the Massachusetts crime for which he had earlier been convicted.

The First Circuit ...

This case belongs in that runaway best-seller entitled "Fifty Ways to Rig a Sentence." Rule 32(b)(6)(B) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. provides that a party may object to any "material information" contained in his Presentence Report ("PSR"); and Rule 32(c)(1) provides that when there is an objection to the recitation of information ...

Court vacated a special condition of supervised release requiring defendant, convicted of drug conspiracy, to refrain from use of alcohol due to lack of evidence that defendant was prone to abuse of alcohol or suffered from a dependency problem.

As we have often noted recently, there is a growing tendency ...

As we have often noted recently, there is a growing tendency on the part of the courts to treat all conditions of supervised release generically; and to impose as many crowd-pleasing conditions as possible without regard to whether those conditions have anything to do with the defendant's crime or the ...

Quote from Justice Story abou the purposes of constitutional venue guarantee in Article III that the trial of all crimes shall be held in the State where such crimes have been committed.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - The purposes of the venue provisions of the Constitution.

Proper venue in criminal ...

Here the Court agreed that the district court had erred in permitting the introduction of certain impeachment evidence that resulted in undue prejudice and jury confusion, but neverthless held that the error was harmless.

Warning that "Courts must be watchful that impeachment is not used as a subterfuge to place ...

This case belongs in that runaway best-seller entitled "Fifty Ways to Rig a Sentence." Rule 32(b)(6)(B) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. provides that a party may object to any "material information" contained in his Presentence Report ("PSR"); and Rule 32(c)(1) provides that when there is an objection to the recitation of information ...

Here the Court held that venue over the charge of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violance or a drug trafficking crime was not proper in a state where the defendant did not use or carry the gun.

In this multi-faceted, multi-defendant drug ...

In this multi-faceted, multi-defendant drug case an important venue issue stands out. At the conclusion of the Government's case, one of the defendants moved to dismiss the gun charges against him for lack of venue. He was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), which makes in unlawful ...

For a detailed analysis of the Fourth Circuit's decision, see attorney Roger Parloff's article "Miranda on the Hot Seat" which appeared in the New York Times Magazine on Sunday, September 26, 1999, a full copy of which is available on this Web site under the section entitled LawReviewArticles.

This brief ...

Case held that Government's decision to charge defendant with multiple felonies after he withdrew his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct consisting of vindictive prosecution.

Testa v. United States, 971 F.Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Judge Rakoff)
United States v. Warren, 971 F.Supp. 1288 (E.D.Ark. 1997) (Judge Howard)

Two cases published the week of October 6, 1997 show the extremes of what it takes to prove that newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial under Rule ...

Testa v. United States, 971 F.Supp. 833 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (Judge Rakoff)
United States v. Warren, 971 F.Supp. 1288 (E.D.Ark. 1997) (Judge Howard)

Two cases published the week of October 6, 1997 show the extremes of what it takes to prove that newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial under Rule ...

This important case was first reviewed by us in our June 16, 1997 issue (Vol. 4, No. 24). Presumably, after a Government request for a rehearing, the original decision which was reported at 112 F.3d 1391, has now been superseded and replaced by this, virtually unchanged decision. The decision focuses ...

Court held that granting an acceptance of responsibilty reduction was not improper even though the defendant failed to accept responsibility for relevant conduct - because there was no evidence that the defendant falsely denied or frivously contested such relevant conduct.

To the obvious horror and chagrin of the Government, this case reopens one of the worst chapters in the long and illustrious history of prosecutorial misconduct - the disgraceful episodes of the infamous El Rukn's trials and the appalling, still uncensored conduct of Assistant United States Attorney William R. Hogan, ...

After original conviction on a lesser charge was vacated due to the failure of the district court to include an essential element of the crime charged, the Government brought a new indictment charging a greater offense than that originally charged. The defendant argued that the new charge violated the Double ...

The Court stated that: "Because all crimes covered by § 2L1.2 involve illegal presence in the United States by aliens, deportability was certainly accounted for in the guideline. [Thus], the district court did not err in deeming deportable alien status an inappropriate basis for departure in these cases." (Id., at ...

In November of 1992, the Sentencing Commission added this new policy statement which holds that "lack of guidance as a youth and similar circumstances indicating a disadvantaged upbringing are not relevant grounds for imposing a sentence outside the applicable guideline range." In these related cases, Judge Williams ruled that the ...

Case held that "fronting" (i.e., allowing co-conspirators to buy drugs on credit) is not alone sufficient to justify the imposition of a sentence enhancement for being a leader or organizer.