In this case the Court held that police officers who intentionally violate a suspect's rights under Miranda v. Arizona in order to obtain statements for impeachment purposes are not immune from a civil rights suit under 42 USC § 1983.

Here, two of the plaintiffs in this case are California ...

Here the Court affirmed a district court's decision to strike the testimony of a defense witness who had heard about the testimony of a Government witness from the defendant's attorney during the course of his own preparation for trial.

In this case a majority of the Fourth Circuit held that ...

Here the Court reversed a conviction where a juror had been dismissed after deliberationsstarted, holding that if there is any reasonable possibility that the impetus for the dismissal stems from the juror's views on the merits, dismissal is improper.

Prior to being elected Governor of Arizona in 1991, the defendant ...

Here, over the dissent of Judge Murnaghan, the en banc Court reversed a panel's earlier decision granting habeas relief to the petitioner after he was ordered to be reincarcerated following twenty months of freedom granted due to a mistake.

Here the District Court of Maryland denied a prisoner's civil rights claim under the Eighth Amendment, holding that the random rape of female prisoners by prison guards is not "punishment" for purposes of "cruel and unusual punishment".

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - Random rapes of female prisoners by prison guards ...

In this case, the Eleventh Circuit held that there are different standards that apply to the use of the two-level sentence enhancement called for by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). For defendants who were actually found possessing a gun, the correct standard is whether it was “clearly improbable” that the gun was ...

In this drug case the Seventh Circuit reversed as improper a six-level upward departure that had been imposed at sentencing by the district court because of the unusually high purity of the heroin that was involved. Customs officials intercepted a package of 248 grams of heroin and they made a ...

In the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit held that attaching the label of “sex offender” to a prisoner who has never been convicted of a sexual offense is sufficiently stigmatizing as to trigger the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

In front of the court was consolidated cases ...

Petitioners challenged the determination by the Secretary of State that petitioners were foreign terrorist organizations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1189.

The court affirmed the designation of petitioners as foreign terrorist organizations. The court found that 8 U.S.C. § 1189 gave the Secretary of State the power to make a ...

The defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and at sentencing the district court imposed a four-level sentencing enhancement under the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.9 (entitled "Criminal Purpose"), concluding that the defendant intended to use the firarm ...

This is one of the rare cases dealing with U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8, entitled "Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment." In this case, the defendant was convicted and sentenced for controlling a building and making it available for use for the purpose of illegal drug activity, inviolation of 21U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). ...

Here the Court held that the suppression of a foreign defendant's statements was not an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Vienna Convention, where he was unable to show that he was prejudiced due to the failure to advise him of his rights.

Here the Court stated that "most ...

In this case the Court held that police officers who intentionally violate a suspect's rights under Miranda v. Arizona in order to obtain statements for impeachment purposes are not immune from a civil rights suit under 42 USC § 1983.

In this case the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice joined ...

In this case the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s presence in an area known for heavy drug trafficking, combined with his unprovoked flight at the mere sight of the police, justified a stop-and-frisk search without violating the Fourth Amendment.

In this case, a four-car caravan of police cars were ...

Here the Court held that a criminal defendant's constitutional right to represent himself at trial, that was recognized in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), does not apply to appeals, which were not available at common law.

In a ruling that certainly adds to the growing impediments to, and ...