After one defendant pled guilty and received a 36 month sentence, the court granted a significant downward departure on numerous grounds when the government sought sentences of 188 to 235 months for defendants who went to trial.

Case held that exemption portion of statute, permitting some classes of felons to own guns, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Among its holdings in this case, the Court ruled that felons are not a protected class for purposes of the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause ...

Case explores in depth the differences between the Fifth and Sixth Amendments separate rights to counsel.

This case deals with the general topic of the admissibility of incriminating statements made by an accused after he is in custody and when his counsel is not present. Most of the law on that issue has evolved from the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Massiah v. U.S., 377 U.S. ...

In reversing the action of the district court, the Court relied heavily on the six factors it had outlined in McDonald v. Carnahan, 109 F.3d 1319 (8th Cir. 1997), as elements that the court must consider before determining whether a prison consent decree should be cancelled as "prospective relief.".

Court ...

Case held that reindictment after a successful Bailey appeal on charges which the Government originally dismissed did not violate defendant's double jeopardy rights.

Case explores the use of "summaries" under Rule 1006 in great detail, explaining the five preconditions to using a summary chart and describing the three different kinds of summaries.

The fact that this case involved bombs and destructive devices made it virtually certain that the defendant would not win, as evidenced by the Court's treatmnet of a number of cases cited where a special skill enhancement was denied. For example, in U.S. v. Hickman, 991 F.2d 1110 the court ...

Despite going to trial, the Court granted an acceptance of responsibility sentence reduction principally because the defendants had admitted virtually all the facts to the Government after their arrest.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - A medley of thoughts on the inherent dangers of letting the jury hear evidence of past convictions.

"The law of evidence places barriers between the jury and a defendant's prior crimes because there are limits on how coolly rational the law can expect jurors to ...

Here the Court emphasized that where the government alleges that a defendant, through misrepresentations, engaged in a deceptive course of conduct "the misrepresentations must be material to give rise to liablity" under § 1344 (id., at 167); and that "a course of conduct consisting simply of depositing checks into a ...

Some examples of the prejudicial effect on jurors on hearing evidence of past crimes.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - A medley of thoughts on the inherent dangers of letting the jury hear evidence of past convictions.

"The law of evidence places barriers between the jury and a defendant's prior crimes ...

Can a "sole participant" in a drug crime receive a sentence adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) for being a minor participant? Here, the Eighth Circuit says "Yes - sometimes." The defendant was arrested driving a truckload of marijuana; and he pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He claimed, ...

Court affirmed that statements made during the course of plea discussions with the Government are not admissible against the defendant who participated in such discussions.

Plaintiff, who blew the whistle of Don Quayle for smoking pot, brought suit under the FOIA; and this case gives a relatively detailed summary of the law dealing with the exemption for information "compiled for law enforcement purposes.".

In this case, Assistant United States Attorney John Thar released confidential information ...

Case rejected the Government's claim that the defendant had invited the error of admission of prior conviction evidence by mentioning the prior convictions in counsel's opening statement, since the Government had first raised the issue in its opening.

The Court explained that under the "invited error doctrine", if a proponent ...

Case held that district courts should enforce the PLRA's exhaustion requirements sua sponte.

Case noted mich of the philosophy behind the enactment of the PLRA when it commented: "Prior to the enactment of [this] statute, no significant incentives existed to deter the filing of state prison petitions raising insubstantial issues, ...

After looking at numerous factors including lack of predisposition, the lucrative inducements offered and the overall unfairness of the sting operation, the court granted a significant departure based on sentencing entrapment.

This is one of those lonely decisions that shows the pent-up frustration of some judges over the Government's ability ...

Case held that a plea of not guilty makes "intent" a material issue which permits introduction of evidence of past crimes to allow the Government to meet its "substantial" burden of proof.

United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 1998) (Judge Gibson)
United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1998) (Per Curiam)

In criminal trials, one of the oldest and most tenacious prosecutorial tricks around is to attempt to suggest to the jury that it should convict the ...

United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 1998) (Judge Gibson)
United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1998) (Per Curiam)

In criminal trials, one of the oldest and most tenacious prosecutorial tricks around is to attempt to suggest to the jury that it should convict the ...

Case held that the failure of counsel to move for a JRAD did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Case explores in depth the differences between the Fifth and Sixth Amendments separate rights to counsel.

The Guidelines are now more than 10 years old; and in that brief time span they have probably produced more litigation than any other piece of legislation ever devised by Congress - certainly within the same time frame - and maybe even absolutely. Because of that, it is strange to ...

Court granted a downward departure based on aberrant conduct after looking at a "convergance of factors" including the lack of any prior criminal history, the single criminal act and the pressure placed on the defendants by the Government agent.

After one defendant pled guilty and received a 36 month sentence, the court granted a significant downward departure on numerous grounds when the government sought sentences of 188 to 235 months for defendants who went to trial.

In granting a safety valve departure, the court emphasized that the defendants need only disclose what is known and that the Government cannot simply say "We don't believe the defendant" and do nothing more.

Case is noted for its affirmation of the principle that when government agents use "persuasuion alone" - not amounting to threats - it can constitute conduct that is sufficiently coercive to warrant a downward departure under § 5K2.12.

Court determined that error in admitting evidence about past crimes was only harmless error for husband defendant but not for wife defendant.

Case examined, and purported to answer, the question of who has the burden of proof about a defendant's intent and ability to produce or deliver drugs when the defendant claims he lacked such intent and ability.

The Guidelines are now more than 10 years old; and in that brief time ...

Case held that when the Government seeks to try a juvenile as an adult it need only show a substantial federal interest.

Case rejected claim that counsel's persistent demands for money created a conflict, but it ordered an evidentiary hearing on the claim that counsel had a conflict by failing to raise an incorrect and embarrassing "advice of counsel" defense.

Case held that fact that defense counsel's partner had represented defendant's co-conspirator in related forfeiture proceedings did not warrant automatic reversal, but required remand to determine whether conflict in fact existed.