The holding in this case seems to be at odds with the holdings in two previous Tenth Circuit rulings, namely U.S. v. Lee, 989 F.2d 377, 380 (10th Cir. 1993) and U.S. v. Vargas, 925 F.2d 1260, 1266 (10th Cir. 1991). Both of those cases adopted the approach first taken ...

Equally divided en banc court affirmed a § 924(c) conviction, despite incorrect jury instructions on the meaning of "use" of a gun, which six judges felt was harmless error.

Reflecting the dilemma created by the judicial rule that a defendant is not entitled to a reversal of his conviction based on improper comments by the prosecutor, the Court emphasized that such inaction "does not mean we condone [such] remarks".

Here the Court held that the Hobbs Act justified Federal action (and a sentence of 215 years in prion) in a case where the defenant was convicted of 7 bank robberies where he netted $17,000 - or $79.07 for each year of his sentence.

This week’s dilly comes from Texas ...

Here the Court rejected a claim that the district court had erred by failing to admit his entire confession because the only portions excluded were portions that inculpated another person and dၩd not exculpate the appellant.

Case held that the rule of completeness, by which a defendant's entire statement should ...

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - Is any sentence of 2,581 months in Federal prison ever justified - or does the Government just need such sentences for propaganda purposes as a means of justifying its “race to federalize state crimes?”

"The current race to federalize state crimes epitomizes the very tendency ...

Case held that "a general remand allows the district court to resentence the defendant de novo, which means that the district court may redo the entire sentencing process including considering new evidence and issues." (Id., at 597). Conversely, "a limited remand constrains the district court's sentencing authority to the issue ...

In this case the Court examined, and rejected, a series of arguments made by a defendant who sought a downward sentencing departure based on his severe drug dependence. Although U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 states that neither drug nor alcohol abuse is a valid reason for imposing a sentence below the applicable ...

In this case, the defendant Knobloch pled guilty to three counts charging him with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, distribution of anabolic steroids to an individual named Davis, and using and carrying a Glock 9-mm handgun during and in relation to the distribution of anabolic steroids to Davis. (Id., at 368). ...

The district court held, and the Court of Appeals ageed, that the striking of of six out of seven black venirepersons constituted a prima facie case of discrimination; but that case was offset by the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for his actions.

Here the Court held that the state's peremptory challenges ...

The Court noted that "the Sentencing Commission has made it clear that possession of the weapon at the site of the offense conduct is not a strict requirement for a sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1). Instead, the Commission has stated that the defendant's possession of the dangerous weapon where relevant ...

This case shows another of the many vindictive sides of Big Brother. Here, after the Government failed
in its efforts to convict the defendant, it promptly moved to bankrupt him. Here’s what happened. The
defendant was acquitted of a charge of using a communication facility to obtain possession of ephedrine ...

Court rejected a claim that the district court erred by attributing to the defendant the full weight of the drugs involved on the grounds that only 0.5% of the mixture was drugs and that amount was therefore "unusable" or "unmarketable.".

The plaintiff alleged sex offenders appealed the judgment of the District of Hawaii, which granted summary judgment to defendant prison administrators on plaintiffs' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Hawaii's Sex Offender Treatment Program violated the ex post facto clause, their due process rights and their privilege ...

Here the Court rejected the defendant's claim that a court has the inherent power to grant "judicial immunity" to immunize witnesses whose exculpatory testimony is deemed essential to an effective defense.

Here the Court held that a prosecutor's statements during closing arguments in the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial referring to defendant's failure to show remorse did not violate the Fifth Amendment.

In his dissent, Judge Butzner framed the issue in this case as follows: "Did Mackall have a right to the assistance of competent counsel to pursue the issue of allegedly incompetent counsel in his state habeas corpus proceeding? Sound precedent suggests an affirmative answer. . . . Although a prisoner ...

This decision by Judge Gertner is one of her typical gems which focused on the defense of immunity in civil rights actions and presents a detailed and critical analysis of Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266.

In sharp contrast to the callousness and circumvention that sometimes emanates from the prairie ...

In sharp contrast to the callousness and circumvention that sometimes emanates from the prairie plains of Texas, comes this legal gem from one of the most intellectually honest judges in America - Judge Nancy Gertner of Massachusetts. Here, she has produced a tour de force on a topic that is ...

In this case the Court examined, and rejected, a series of arguments made by a defendant who sought a downward sentencing departure based on his severe drug dependence. Although U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 states that neither drug nor alcohol abuse is a valid reason for imposing a sentence below the applicable ...

The district court held, and the Court of Appeals ageed, that the striking of of six out of seven black venirepersons constituted a prima facie case of discrimination; but that case was offset by the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for his actions." (Id., at 424).

This case is noted for Judge ...

Court held that bankruptcy fraud is in itself a violation of a judicial or administrative order or process which properly warrants the use of the sentence enhancement contained in § 2F1.1(b)(4)(B) - formerly codified at § 2F1.1(b)(3)(B).

In this case the Court affirmed the use of the sentence enhancement contained ...

Case held that provisions of USSG § 1B1.2, which permit the court to determine which offenses the defendant conspired to commit if jury does not specify those offenses, does not violate the 5th or 6th Amendments.

The other side of the immunity issue is the topic of absolute immunity - which is reserved only for the
really big cheeses - the judges and the prosecutors - because the Supreme Court has determined that
those officials perform special functions that require independence and fearless performance. See, Burns ...

Citing cases, the Court held that Confrontation Clause does not require presence of defendant at hearing on Motion for New Trial.

Case approved taking of blood samples under Violence Against Women's Act to test for AID's virus.

This case is noted because it involves an attempt by the Government to expand its realm of already broad
criminal statutes. Here, it seized upon on a little-known statute, originally enacted in 1840 and which never
before has led to any criminal charges, as the basis for its prosecution. The ...

Over the strong dissent of Judge Merritt, the Court held that it was improper for the district court to impose the dangerous weapon enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) because the scope of the remand was limited.

Court reversed district courts calculation of loss based only on bonuses paid to defendant rather than total loss incurred by employer.