Once again a Federal court has embarrassed and clipped the wings of the Department of Justice for another of its anti-terrorism bloopers - this time a highly-publicized yet misguided attempt to indict first and then scramble furiously to develop the evidence needed to support a conviction against alleged terrorists. Here, ...

Here, the Court directed the Government to disclose to the defense, “forthwith,” the name and criminal history of a confidential informant who was directly involved in at least three of the transactions with which the defendant was charged.

This case is an important reminder that even the impossible motions can ...

Here the Court granted the defendant's motion to seal the information contained in a financial affidavit filed to obtain counsel on the grounds that there was a sufficiently real risk of self-incrimination through the Government's use of that information.

On January 22, 2002, a Federal grand jury returned an indictment ...

Where the trial court (rather than the jury) found that defendant used a semiautomatic assault weapon when he committed Hobbs Act robberies, defendant must be resentenced as to that conviction, to a term of imprisonment for use of a nondescript firearm.

Here, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Castillo ...

Two of the defendants in this case, Samuel Ward and Daniel Drucker, were convicted at trial of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud. The convictions arose out of the prosecution of a number of defendants in the securities business for engaging in a “pump and dump” scheme - ...

Here the Court held that dousing prisoners with pepper spray from a large cannister violated their rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and gave rise to discovery sanctions against prison officials.

After a prison riot was quelled, officers searched for weapons and contraband. ...

In this case, while the Court agreed that restitution to the IRS could not be ordered for tax offenses under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-3664) since that act does not apply to Title 26 offenses, it also held that the district court could properly order ...

The defendant in this case was charged with and tried for making bomb threats after his employment was terminated. The jury determined that defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity, and after holding a § 4243(d) hearing, the trial court determined that defendant was ineligible for release. The defendant ...

Here the Court held that delegation of determination of the amount of restitution to the Tax Court or the IRS, after a tax evasion conviction, is impermissible as an abrogation of the court's judicial authority.

In this case, the Court stated: "The district court in this case delegated the determination ...

In this case the Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a sentence departure based on “extraordinary physical impairment” due to his affliction with Gorlin Syndrome (recurrent jaw cysts) and other cancer related ailments that required monitoring every two months.

In this case, the Government filed a civil action against the defendant/taxpayer seeking (a) to reduce to judgment certain outstanding tax assessments for tax years 1981-1988; (b) to set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances of real property; and (c) to foreclose federal tax liens against certain real property. To obtain evidence ...

The defendant in this case, Ronald Moore, sold small quantities of crack cocaine to an undercover police officer on eight separate occasions before he was arrested. Moore pled guilty; and, based on the quantity of drugs involved and a Criminal History category of V, he faced a Guideline sentencing range ...

In an appeal from conviction for tax-evasion,the Sixth Circuit held that the district court had abused its discretion in requiring defendant to undergo testing and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, and to abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages during his three-year term of supervised release. The Court stated ...