In this case, the district court decided at sentencing that a five-level increase in the defendant's sentence for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor was appropriate - despite the fact that prior to the date of the sentencing neither the prosecutor nor the court had suggested that an upward ...

United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2000) (Judge Nelson)
United States v. Whitman, 209 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2000) (Per Curiam)

Both of these cases dealt with judges whose intemperate conduct during phases of a criminal proceeding led to calls for their recusal - a goal that ...

In this case, the First Circuit held that the Federal district court in Massachusetts went beyond the limits of its power by adopting into its own rules a state ethics rule that imposes new substantive requirements on prosecutors who want to subpoena client related information from a lawyer.

The U.S. ...

Here the Tenth Circuit joined the vast majority of Circuits in holding that a district court may consider conduct unrelated to the offense of conviction in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a sentence reduction under § 3E1.1.

In this case the Tenth Circuit joined the vast majority of ...

Once again, the Sixth Circuit has affirmed its minority view among the Circuits that the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 are concerned “solely with whether a defendant admits or denies material conduct during her investigation, prosecution, or sentencing.” Most of the other Circuits have held that a sentencing court may ...

The defendant in this case appealed a modified 46 month sentence imposed by the district court (Judge Hurley) some 13 days after the court initially imposed a 24 month sentence. Apparently, after imposing the initial sentence, the district court had "misgivings." Within the seven day period specified in Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(c), ...

This case is noted principally for Judge Politz' dissent where he objected to the defendant's almost three-fold increase in her sentence based on the testimony of two co-conspirators whose testimony was filled with "multiple inconsistencies".

The principal issue raised in this appeal was whether the district court had erred by ...

United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2000) (Judge Nelson)
United States v. Whitman, 209 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2000) (Per Curiam)

Both of these cases dealt with judges whose intemperate conduct during phases of a criminal proceeding led to calls for their recusal - a goal that ...

In this case, some two weeks before trial, the Government learned that one of its key witnesses would be on a pre-paid vacation in Europe on the date of the trial; and on the date set for start of the trial it learned that its other key witness would be ...

On March 27, 2000, the Senate passed and sent to the President for his expected signature the long-debated Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act which shifts much of the burden of proof to the government in civil forfeiture proceedings and raises the legal standard for seizures before conviction. Senator Leahy, one ...

Here a divided Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer's “squeezing” of soft-sided luggage stored by a passenger in an overhead luggage compartment on a bus constituted an unjustified search and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment.

In this case the Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer’s “squeezing” ...

This is one of two cases decided by the Supreme Court on the same day, bearing identical case names. (The other case was (Terry) Williams v. Taylor, No. 98-8384, which is reported at 529 U.S. 362 (2000)). Both cases dealt with appeals filed by two different death row inmates, both ...