In his typical fashion, District Judge Martin of New York started this evocative decision with a bang. He wrote: “The adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines has substantially changed the role of the criminal defense lawyer. Counsel’s ability to persuade the judge or jury is now far less important than his ...

In this case, a number of defendants were convicted of a series of violations arising out of their attempts to smuggle Chinese aliens into the United States. On appeal, they sought to reverse their convictions on the grounds that the Government violated their rights under two international treaties. Specifically, they ...

Here the Sixth Circuit reluctantly followed current Supreme Court precedent in holding that a defendant has no right to counsel in pre-indictment criminal proceedings, a policy which it shaprly criticized as out of touch with reality.

In this case, some three months prior to his indictment, the defendant engaged in ...

In this decision the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling and rejected the government’s far-fetched argument that a detective had reasonable suspicion to order an investigatory stop of a vehicle based on the “distinctive sound” of marijuana being dropped into the back of the vehicle. Here, the FBI had ...

Here the Court criticized the FBI's policy of not recording confessions, preferring instead to rely on the testimony of the interviewing agents, stating that the use of inexpensive recording techniques would facilitate truthseeking.

In this case, the First Circuit addressed a claim by a number of defendants that their Fifth ...

In this case, the Sixth Circuit held that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) are constitutional despite the fact that they do not require the Government to prove that the defendant knew his conduct was illegal.

In this case the defendant appealed from an order denying his motion to ...

In this case the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the appointment of U.S. Attorney Gill, alleging that his continued intermin appointment was improper under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). [For a more detailed discussion of that same issue, see United States v. Santana, 83 F.Supp.2d 224 (D.Puerto Rico ...

Here the Court added to a Circuit split in holding that a district court may not, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), require that its sentence be served consecutively to a state sentence that will be imposed in the future. In renedering its decision, the Court observed: "Other ...

In this case, the district court exluded the testimony of the defendant's only supporting witness because the defendant's court-appointed counsel, in the preparation of his case, had spoken with that witness about a prior witness's testimony. The defendant argued that his counsel had a duty to invesitage and to interview ...

In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had erred in holding that the use of pepper spray on non-violent demonstrators at an environmental protest against the Pacific Lumber Company was a reasonable use of force. Here, nine environmentalist activists and an organization called the Headwaters Forest ...

This case is noted for its extended discussion of the parameters under which the Bureau of Prisons may forcibly use antipsychotic drugs on a prisoner. Here, the defendant was charged with killing two police officers and the attempted murder of a third. He was diagnosed as a “paranoid schizophrenic”, which ...

In this case the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that when a pretrial detainee alleges that prison guards used excessive force he or she must show that the guards acted maliciously and sadistically in causing the harm. This is the same standard that must be proven ...

Here the Court held that the petitioner's due process rights were violated where his parole was revoked for exercising his right to refuse psychotropic medication which was ordered to be administered by a parole agent.

Here, in summarizing its reasons for granting the petitioner habeas relief after his parole was ...

All of the appellants in this case argued that the district court erred in imposing a six-level increase to their offense levels because more than 100 aliens were involved in their crime. They contended that the district court should have instead imposed a four-level increase because 25-99 aliens were involved. ...

In this case, the Government appealed from a decision by the district court, reported at 57 F.Supp.2d 565, in which it refused to enhance the defendant’s mail fraud sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(7)(B) since the losses involved in his crime were incurred by a pension fund, which is not a ...

The appellant in this case filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages and injunctive relief against several prison guards based on claims of the use of excessive force while he was incarcerated at a State prison. The controlling provision for such lawsuits is now 42 U.S.C. ...