United States v. Wardlaw, 977 F.Supp. 1481 (N.D.Ga. 1997) (Judge Shoob)

Both of these cases deal with various aspects of the Federal wire-tap laws. In Padilla-Pena the defendants claimed that the Government had failed to "minimize" the recording of conversations a required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). That statute requires ...

Case held that trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the testimony of two prospective witnesses who had announced that they would invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

Here the Court refused to attribute to the defendant, for sentencing purposes, the amount of drugs that an undercover agent attempted to sell to him and for which he did not have sufficient assets to purchase.

After convictions for a series of drug and racketeering offenses, the defendant raised a ...

Proof of an overt act not required under Federal criminal civil rights statute; but case lists contrary holdings in other circuits.

In case of first impression, court held that Government was not required to prove the existence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Quote from former Associate Director of DOJ's Asset Forfeiture Program describing the Alice-in-Wonderland attitude of the forfeiture laws.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - The forfeiture laws - legalized treasure hunts.

David B. Smith, the former Associate Director of the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Office, and who is thus obviously ...

Here the Court stated that: "In contrast to the requirements concerning probable cause and prior applications [for a wiretap order]. . . ., the government's statutory obligation to make 'a full and complete statement concerning the necessity of the powerful and intrusive weapon that electronic surveillance constitutes is unqualified; the ...

This forfeiture case shows ease by which the Government can seize cash under the so-called "probable cause standards" that prevail in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Federal drug forfeiture statutes. (See the Quote of the Week below.)

In this case, Daniel Trujillo was stopped at an airport by some DEA ...

Speaking of the iron will and steel fist of Judge Lechner, this case indirectly involves another one of his proverbial sentences. Here, one Richard Bertoli was charged with several RICO and obstruction of justice counts which included, as underlying predicate acts, certain fraudulent schemes concerning the issuance of securities by ...

United States v. Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 1997) (Judge Gibson)

Both of these cases deal with various aspects of the Federal wire-tap laws. In Padilla-Pena the defendants claimed that the Government had failed to "minimize" the recording of conversations a required by 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5). That statute ...

This forfeiture case shows ease by which the Government can seize cash under the so-called "probable cause standards" that prevail in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the Federal drug forfeiture statutes. (See the Quote of the Week below.)

In this case, Daniel Trujillo was stopped at an airport by some DEA ...

Speaking of the iron will and steel fist of Judge Lechner, this case indirectly involves another one of his proverbial sentences. Here, one Richard Bertoli was charged with several RICO and obstruction of justice counts which included, as underlying predicate acts, certain fraudulent schemes concerning the issuance of securities by ...

In this case, the defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud his employer, Dairyland Power Cooperative. The defendant's job was to sell the company's used equipment. He would obtain checks from purchasers and deliver these to Dairyland. As a part of his scheme, he established a bank account in his ...

Here the Court upheld an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(4)(B) (formerly codified as § 2F1.1(b)(3)(B)) for violating a "judicial or administrative order" of the Department of Transportation even though there was no formal adversary "proceeding" before the DOT resulting in a formal administrative "order" or "decree.".

Case upheld enhancement for ...

Court holds that purpose of new § 1915(a)(3) "is not simply to deter, but to preclude prisoners from taking appeals in forma pauperis when they attempt to do so in bad faith. Thus, it expressely rejects the holding of the 6th Circuit in McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th ...

Here the Court upheld an enhancement upheld for being an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that was "otherwise extensive" even though Government did not argue that five participants were involved.

Case held that provisons of Brady Handgun Law that require local officials to undertake background checks of potential handgun buyers violated the Tenth Amendment.

Case reviewed the Supreme Court's four factor test to determine what constitutes the curtilage of a home, as set forth in U.S. v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

This is an important money laundering case because it deals with the Government's contention that "every check kiting scheme involves conduct that is punishable under the money laundering statutes." (Id., at 579). In this case, the defendant was convicted of bank fraud, misapplication of funds and money laundering. He argued ...

The Granddaddy of all Sentencing Guidelines cases is back for another test of Judge Lechner's iron will and steel fist - and that's always a losing proposition. The original series of Kikumura cases began back in 1988 with U.S. v. Kikumura, 698 F.Supp. 546 (D.N.J. 1988). The defendant, an alleged ...

Here the Court held that a downward adjustment for minimal participation should be "used infrequently" and is "appropriate, for example, for someone who played no other role in a very large drug smuggling operation than to offload part of a single marijuana shipment, or in a case where an individual ...

This series of six Orders bristles with intrigue, coverups and undercurrents of serious Government misconduct. For example, in an ex parte submission to the Magistrate Judge initially involved in this case, the Government conceded that the FBI control agents for one of its undercover agents "had at least tacitly authorized ...

Court held that grant of preliminary injunction that barred SEC from prosecuting civil enforcement action was an abuse of discretion.

Here the Court disagreed with Second Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Collado, 106 F.3d 1097 (2nd Cir. 1997) that 21 USC § 851(a)(2) was ambiguous; and thus applied sentencing enhancement.