Court affirmed district court's decision that forfeiture of gambling proceeds was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; but court also determined that the claimants were not entitled to counsel fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

For more detailed summaries of this case, see prior decisions reported at 957 F.Supp. 110 and 138 F.3d 229; and subsequent decision reported at 35 F.Supp.2d 1010.

In a follow-up to its prior rulings, the Court held that sanctions against prison officials were appropriate due to their failure to fully ...

Court reversed gambling convictions due to lack of evidence that defendants engaged in illegal bookmaking in Texas, where facts showed that bookmaking portion of their business occurred in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.

Case held that prisoners held a constitutionally cognizable propert interest to interest earned on funds deposited in unmate trust accounts to trigger a violation of the Fifth Amendment's taking clause.

Case held that the circumstances of a bus search, conducted in cramped quarters, was consciously designed to take full advantage of a coercive environment, and violated the 4th Amendment's prohibitions against unreasonable searches.

In this case, two police officers, casually dressed and with their weapons concealed, boarded a bus at ...

In support of its decision, the Court cited 18 USC § 201(a)(1) which defines a "public official" to include a "juror.".

Case held that a juror was a "government official holding a high-level decision making or sensitive position" which warranted an eight level enhancement under § 2C1.1(b)(2)(B) for taking a ...

This case is noted because it is the first Court of Appeals decision that we have seen to discuss whether the Probation Office's practice of initiating revocation proceedings is without statutory authority and constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. That issue was first raised by Judge Eisele in U.S. v. ...

In this case the Court examined, at length, the common-law right of allocution.

Among the many issues decided in this case, the Court held that a defendant does not have a right under Rule 32(c)(3)(C) and 18 USC § 3593(c) to make an unsworn statement of remorse before the jury.

Here the Court held that "Whether a coconspirator's imprisonment constitutes a withdrawal must be decided by the jury in light of the length and location of the internment, that nature of the conspiracy, and any other available evidence" (Id., at 150.

Case held that the defendant's defrauding of a financial institution's wholly-owned subsidiary "affected a financial institution within the meaning of the 10-year statute of limitations even though subsidiary was not itself a financial institution.

Case approved giving of willful blindness instruction, rejecting defendant's claim that such a instruction is erroneous where there is an absence of evidence showing a deliberate act.

Barbaric case in which the police attempted an after midnight arrest, utilizing excessive force on minor children.

Court rejected defendants' claims that Judge Young had denied them a fair trial by giving the impression to the jury that he was acting as the prosecutor's "assistant".

Here the Court called the Singleton ruling "amazingly unsound, not to mention nonsensical, especially in its creation ex nihilo of an exclusionary rule barring testimony from virtually every cooperating federal witness." (Id., at 521).

Case is noted for the Government's opposition to a term of probation, despite the district court's finding that the 70-year old defendant suffered from life threatening health conditions, arguing that such conditions did not show any informities to an exceptional degree. Although the Eighth Circuit stated that the issue was ...

In a case of first impression the Court held that the sentence enhancement provisions of 21 USC § 851, which authorize the prosecutor to file notice of intent to increase sentences based on prior crimes, does not improperly delegate legislative power.

This case involved a multi-defendant conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center complex in New York City. At trial, one defendant, Abouhalima, refused to concede that a bomb had blown up the World Trade Center. Another defendant, Salameh, conceded not only the existence of the bomb, but argued that ...

Citing U.S. v. Smith, 39 F.3d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1994), the Court stated that "In order to enhance a defendant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, the evidence must show that the defendant knew his victim was unusually vulnerable and that he perpetrated a crime on him because ...

Case held that if the defendant's wire fraud affects a financial institution, then the ten-year statute of limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C.§ 3293(2) applies.

This is a rare case in which a Federal Judge not only admitted that he had made a mistake by granting the Government an improvident Speedy Trial Act extension of time, he then rectified the mistake by dismissing the underlying indictment with prejudice.

In this case a dozen defendants were ...

Here the Court wholly agreed with Judge Matsch's decision in U.S. v. Dunlap, 17 F.Supp.2d 1183, in which he held that the Singleton ruling was "wholly inconsistent with the congressionally authorized practice of plea agreements that provide leniency".

In this case the Court concluded that a plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim "drops ourt of the case" when his arrest is pursuant to a valid warrant because the Fourth Amendment "governs the period of confinement between the arrest without a warrant and the preliminary hearing at which a determination of ...

We all know it happens - far too often. The trouble is that when a prosecutor intimidates a prospective defense witness into not testifying, there is usually little that can be done. Even when the prosecutor's threats to the witness come out in the open (which is rare), the burdens ...