Here, in holding that the civil in rem forfeiture of $186,000 dollars from illegal deposit structuring and customs offenses did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, the Fourth Circuit distinguished the facts of this case from that of United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

This case ...

In this case Government agents intercepted the defendant attempting to enter the U.S. at which time they discovered 75 pounds of marijuana hidden in the gas tank of his car. The defendant spoke no English, and he was interrogated by three agents, one of whom (Garza) spoke Spanish and acted ...

In this case, the district court rejected a defendant's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) for funds to retain a clinical psychologist to prove that he was entitled to a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 for diminished mental capacity. The district court relied on the provisions of 18 U.S.C. ...

Here the Court held that advances in DNA technology five years after the defendant's trial and conviction was not enough, on its own, to warrant granting leave to file a second or successive writ based on newly discovered evidence.

Here the Court held that a habeas petitioner was not entitled ...

Here the district court granted an upward departure in a credit card fraud case on the grounds that the losses involved did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's conduct by taking into account the psychological harm to the defendant's victims. In granting that departure, the district court relied ...

In this case, the First Circuit held that the federal statutory provision that doubles the limitations period for a wire fraud prosecution if the offense "affects a financial institution" (18 U.S.C. § 3293(2)) does not apply if there was no adverse impact on the financial institution. The court also held ...

We have often wondered how much money the Government must spend creating pornography in its attempts to catch all the perverts that are out there. There are entire Government departments that spend their full time dreaming up steamy new ads and schemes to entice people to break the law; and ...

United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2000) (Judge Loken)
United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2000) (Judge Bowman)

In late June, the Supreme Court handed down an epic decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000 WL 807189) - a decision that was extensively reviewed ...

Although this appeal involved numerous issues, it is noted for the claims of one defendant that the jury should have determined both the quantity and the type of drugs involved in her crime; and that as a result her 30 year sentence based on the sentencing court's determinations of such ...

Here the Court held that a defendant was not entitled to funds under 18 USC § 3006A(e)(1) to retain the services of a clinical psychologist to support a claim of diminished mental capacity where his claim was based on improper considerations.

In this case, the district court rejected a defendant's ...

Here the majority concluded that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted on his claim for a new trial, based on a technical interpretation of State law. Judge Bennett dissented, arguing that the State's case was weak and the defendant was probably innocent. At his trial, the judge denied the defendant's request ...

In this case the Seventh Circuit, on a Government motion for reconsideration, broadly retreated from the scope of its prior decision reported at 176 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 1999) which had suggested that an "unjustified disparity" in sentences imposed on defendants in the same case might be a proper grounds ...

Here the Court held that the district court erred by not conducting a sufficiently thorough Rule 11(c) plea colloquy in the case of a brain damaged defendant to determine whether it was knowingly and intelligently made.

This is one of those decisions that shows how hard it can be to ...

The defendant in this case was convicted after a jury trial, and six-days later moved for an extension of time to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. The district court, sua sponte, chose to hold the motion in abeyance to allow the ...

United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2000) (Judge Loken)
United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2000) (Judge Bowman)

In late June, the Supreme Court handed down an epic decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)) - a decision ...

Here a divided Court reversed and remanded an illegal re-entry conviction (prosecuted under the S.D.Cal.'s "fast track" program) because the district court improperly excluded an 85-day pre-indictment delay from the Speedy Trial Act calculations.

This case is particularly noted for its lengthy discussion of the Southern District if California's "fast ...