In general, a habeas petitioner may not raise a procedurally defaulted claim, i.e., a claim not presented to the state court, unless he demonstrates cause for the default and pre judice from the alleged constitutional violation. (See, Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)). However, a petitioner may obtain a ...

One of the issues raised in this appeal came from one of the defendants, Hector Hernández-Negron, who argued that the government violated his constitutional rights by withdrawing the original plea offer and replacing it with a "package deal" plea that Hernández could only accept if his two remaining co-defendants
also ...

In this case the plaintiff probationer brought a Bivens action (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)) against his Federal probation officer, Kathleen Keenan, claiming that she violated his rights to privacy by disclosing information regarding his HIV status to his sister and his employer. The probation ...

This lengthy en banc decision dealt with the petitioner’s claim that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during the sentencing phase of his capital conviction because his counsel had failed to investigate and to present character witnesses. By a vote of 6-5, the majority essentially held that “because ...

Ever since California adopted Proposition 215 (also called the Compassionate Use Act), the DEA has been at war with doctors who recommend the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The DEA’s position has been that a recommendation would lead the patient to purchase marijuana, which would be a crime and ...

Here the Court held that the plaintiff's staged "perp walk" implicated his privacy rights, and since no legitimate government purposes was served, the perp walk violated the plaintiff's constitutional right to be free from unreasonble seizures.

In this case, the plaintiff brought a § 1983 suit against the New York ...

In this case the Fifth Circuit vacated a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 666 on the grounds that the defendant, while a tax assessor for the Parish, was not an "agent" for the Parish within the meaning of § 666 because he was not authorized to act on behalf of ...

Among the many issues raised in this direct appeal from multiple drug convictions and sentences were numerous challenges to the sentences imposed based on the district court’s determination of the amount of drugs for which each defendant was responsible. Although the Fifth Circuit has “continually endorsed” the practice of allowing ...

In this case the Third Circuit held that evidence that a defendant possessed a loaded firearm while possessing drugs for sale will usually be enough to trigger the enhancement provided by U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possessing a gun "in connection with" aother offense. The Court said that the plain meaning ...

Relying principally on the 2nd exception set forth in Teague v. Lane, Judge Doty concluded that the Apprendi decision was a "watershed case" of constitutional dimension which entitled petitioners to seek collateral relief based on the Apprendi rule.

In this case District Judge Doty of Minnesota held that that the ...

In this case the Court held that because the Supreme Court had not yet determined whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.3d 2d 435 (2000) was a "new rule of constitutional law," it could not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral ...

In this case the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the consensus of most other courts that the Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, stating:

“Only the First Circuit has addressed whether Apprendi created ...

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) seems to have created a feeding frenzy - both among prisoners and the courts. While the prisoners’ wishful interests in Apprendi are understandable, the courts’ interests in writing about Apprendi are a bit ...

The petitioner in this case was convicted of three separate carjackings in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. If a carjacking results in "serious bodily injury," then the statute allows for a greater length of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court found that one of the carjackings had resulted in ...

In this case, Doe Corporation's founder, chairman, and controlling shareholder ["Witness"] was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and his testimony lasted for a full day. Despite the corporation's assertion of the attorney-client privilege, on eight occasions, Witness testified regarding advice Doe Corp. had received from its counsel. (Id., ...

In this case, the Court suggested - but did not decide - that the Apprendi rule would probably not be deemed to be applied retroactively under Teague v. Lane - an issue that the Ninth Circuit ultimately resolved in Jones v. Smith, 213 F.3d 1227.

In this habeas case, the ...

This decision is one of the most significant Apprendi decisions that we have seen to date - in part because it discards any political message and simply analyzes Apprendi on the basis of what it said. In this case, federal and state police discovered 2,308 marijuana plants growing on two ...

The issue presented in this case was whether U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, rather than § 2D1.1, is the applicable offense guideline section for a defendant who has not stipulated or pled guilty to, or been convicted at trial of, a violation of § 860. The Court acknowledged that the issue has ...