The petitioner in this case appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota that denied his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254. Petitioner asserted that his right to due process was violated by the state court's denial of ...

The defendant in this case was charged in a single count indictment with attempted bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2113(a). The government indicated that it intended to call a forensic examiner to offer testimony regarding the comparison of a shoe print left inside the burglarized bank with ...

Here the Court held the district court erred in holding the defendant was ineligible for a § 5K2.13 departure (diminished mental capacity) because its assessment improperly relied on the indictment's language to determine his crime was a violent offense.

This is yet another case that addresses some of the reigning ...

The Government appealed from an order of Judge Burrage of the N.D.Okla. In which he granted an eight-level departure at sentencing, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4(a), asserting the departure was an abuse of discretion. The defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2252(a)(2); ...

The issue before the court on this appeal was whether the State's alleged failure to disclose an understanding or informal agreement of leniency in exchange for the key witness's testimony violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Ultimately, the Court concluded that, because the petitioner, Ernest Collier, had failed ...

Here the Court vacated enhancements both for using a minor to commit a crime (USSG § 3B1.4) and for obstruction of justice based on perjury at trial (USSG § 3C1.1) - holding in both cases the Government had failed to present sufficient evidence.

The defendant in this case, Evelyn Jimenez, ...

In a conviction for illegal presence in the U.S., an upward sentence departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 was proper, based on past "lenient" treatment of defendant's criminal conduct including three DWI convictions with very light sentences.

In a conviction for illegal presence in the U.S., an upward sentence departure under ...

Here the Court held that even though the defendant's 22-year sentence violated the Apprendi rule, the error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights nor seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.

Appellant was a criminal defendant convicted in the United States District Court for ...

The Court held that evidence that defendant had possessed unrelated firearm and unrelated ammunition two years earlier was not relevant under Rule 404(b) to whether he he knowingly possessed different firearm on later date in furtherance of a drug crime.

The defendant in this case was indicted for, inter alia, ...

Here the Court held that state parole boards may not deny parole to prisoners solely on the grounds that they were former drug addicts because the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 USC § 12101 et seq.) prohibits such discrimination.

This case is noted for its somewhat surprising (but potentially very ...

Here the Court rejected the defendant's contention that the failure of his indictment to allege all the essential elements of his crime constituted a jurisdictional defect under Apprendi requiring dismissal of his indictment.

The defendant appealed his conviction and sentence by the United States District Court for the District of ...

This is an important Guidelines’ decision that will probably ignite an immediate debate about the scope of U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 - and set off a flurry of a whole range of new departure motions. In addition, if it is not reversed by an en banc ruling, it will probably also ...

In this case the Court held that admission of evidence of nine "bad acts" (involving prior drug transactions) under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) was proper to prove knowledge of possession and intent to distribute crack cocaine.

Here the Court held that admission of evidence of nine "bad acts" (involving ...

The Court held that the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of evidence seized in violation of a defendant's 4th Amendment rights at sentencing; but left open the question whether such evidence may be used when the evidence is used intentionally.

In this case, the district court had ruled ...

Here, although the Court agreed that the district court had committed error in ordering the empanelling of an anonymous jury, it held the error was harmless in view of the extensive voir dire of the jurors and the overwhelming guilt of the defendants.

In this case, on the government's motion, ...

Travis Randle is going to spend a long, long time in prison wondering how the U.S. system of justice works. In 1996, he and eight co-defendants were tried for and convicted of various federal offenses related to their participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy in Richmond, TX. Randle was sentenced ...

In this case, the defendant was indicted for violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 18 U.S.C.S. § 2. He moved to suppress unwarned statements made to drug enforcement agents while in their custody and evidence the words led to. In a decision reported at 156 F.Supp.2d 60 (D.Me. 2001), ...

In this case, the Second Circuit reversed, for the third time, a 23-year old murder conviction, based on the prosecution’s persistent, backdoor attempts to introduce into evidence an “unreliable” confession of one of four defendants which contained “implicit” accusations against the other defendants. In an unusually strong condemnation of the ...