Criminal Law News

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[10/30] US v. Levesque
A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. Santos, 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008), affects the forfeiture determination in this case; and 3) the case is remanded for lower court to consider whether the imposition of the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment in light of recent pertinent case law.

[10/20] US v. One Star Class Sloop Sailboat Built in 1930 with Hull Number 721
Following a decision finding that the government failed to take reasonable steps to notify a part-owner of a vessel of its intent to forfeit, the damage award of a share of net sales and attorneys' fees is affirmed as modified where the district court erred only in using an impermissible factor to justify an across-the-board disallowance of two-thirds of the time that one attorney claimed to have spent in litigating the default judgment.

[10/15] Turnacliff v. Westly
In a dispute over the amount of interest paid on return of previously unclaimed property, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant Comptroller correctly construed California Code of Civil Procedure section 1540(c) and did not violate the Takings Clause when he returned plaintiff's previously abandoned property with statutorily-determined interest of 1.69 percent.

[10/03] Kim v. Real Property
In an asset forfeiture case interpreting the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), dismissal of a civil forfeiture complaint is reversed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 983(a)(3)(A) authorizes district courts to grant ex parte extensions of time to file civil forfeiture complaints; and 2) district courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate competing claims to seized property even after the underlying civil forfeiture action has been dismissed.

[09/26] Chichakli v. Szubin
In an action challenging a "Blocking Notice" issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) exigent circumstances justified the holding of a post-deprivation hearing after plaintiff's assets were frozen; 2) OFAC's determination that plaintiff was subject to a presidential order freezing his assets was neither arbitrary nor capricious; but 3) jurisdiction over plaintiff's taking claim was held exclusively by the Court of Federal Claims.

[08/14] Santiago-Lugo v. US
In a claim by plaintiff for return of seized but not forfeited property as barred by the statute of limitations, government's motion for summary affirmance is granted where: 1) the six-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(a) applies to Rule 41(g) claims; and 2) in circumstances where there has been a related criminal proceeding but no civil forfeiture proceeding, the cause of action accrues at the end of the criminal proceeding.

[08/06] US v. $125,938.62
In a civil forfeiture action under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), court's order of forfeiture is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the government met its burden of proving that two of the certificates of deposit were subject to forfeiture because they were derived from funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury; but 2) with respect to five other certificates, the government failed to meet its burden to present evidence of a connection between those funds and funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[12/03] US v. Haj-Hamed
A sentence for distributing prescription drugs without a legitimate medical purpose is affirmed where, contrary to defendant's claims, the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

[12/03] US v. Lee
Convictions for murder for hire conspiracy and a separate conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm are vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded in part where: 1) the district court's erroneous admission of detective's testimony recounting statement made by an alleged participant in the conspiracy who did not himself testify at trial was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) the evidence presented at trial to support the conspiracy conviction, including the improperly admitted statement, was legally sufficient; and 3) the district court did not err with respect to the felon in possession of a firearm count.

[12/02] US v. Hunter
Individuals claiming to be victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA) may not appeal from the alleged denial of their rights under that statute except through a petition for a writ of mandamus as set forth by 18 U.S.C. section 3771(d)(3).

[12/02] People v. Giles
Conviction for burglary and possession of stolen property is affirmed in part and reversed in part where evidence of defendant's commission of prior uncharged burglaries was prejudicial as to the burglary count and required a limiting instruction.

[12/02] Matter of Rivera v. Firetog
In a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to bar a retrial for murder on double jeopardy grounds, petition is dismissed where the trial court appropriately declared a mistrial based on the jury's deadlock after exploring alternatives, and retrial of defendant would not implicate double jeopardy.

[12/02] People v. Garcia
Order modifying opinion changed court's judgment to reflect: 1) count 3 was not a serious felony and therefore no section 667, subdivision (a)(1) five-year prior conviction enhancement applied to count 3; 2) upon close review of the record, the court discovered an error in the verdict form related to the prior convictions allegations; 3) the calculations as to the counts 5 and 6 sentences were the same as to the offense itself and therefore the trial court must decide whether to strike or impose all or any of the three one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements; and 4) as to counts 8 and 9, the trial court must decide whether to strike or impose any or all of the three one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements.

[12/02] US v. Padilla
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the district court erred in concluding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk defendant pursuant to Terry v. Ohio and in denying defendant's motion to suppress handgun that was recovered in the frisk; and 2) the district court abused its discretion and violated defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights with trial ruling that curtailed defendant's cross-examination of government witnesses.

Read More

Sentencing

[12/03] US v. Haj-Hamed
A sentence for distributing prescription drugs without a legitimate medical purpose is affirmed where, contrary to defendant's claims, the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

[12/02] US v. Hunter
Individuals claiming to be victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA) may not appeal from the alleged denial of their rights under that statute except through a petition for a writ of mandamus as set forth by 18 U.S.C. section 3771(d)(3).

[12/02] People v. Garcia
Order modifying opinion changed court's judgment to reflect: 1) count 3 was not a serious felony and therefore no section 667, subdivision (a)(1) five-year prior conviction enhancement applied to count 3; 2) upon close review of the record, the court discovered an error in the verdict form related to the prior convictions allegations; 3) the calculations as to the counts 5 and 6 sentences were the same as to the offense itself and therefore the trial court must decide whether to strike or impose all or any of the three one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements; and 4) as to counts 8 and 9, the trial court must decide whether to strike or impose any or all of the three one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements.

[12/02] US v. Smith
Denial of a motion to suppress evidence underlying a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, as well as the resultant sentence, are affirmed where: 1) police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and search him incident to the arrest; and 2) defendant was a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.

[12/02] Pickens v. Howes
When a sentence is modified to make it consistent with state law and to give the defendant the benefit of his original plea agreement, the Constitution does not require the withdrawal of a once-illegal plea.

[12/02] US v. Salim
Sentence of 32 years for conspiracy to murder and attempted murder of a federal official is vacated and remanded where: 1) the district court erred by holding that a federal crime of terrorism must involve conduct transcending national boundaries; and 2) the sentence imposed was unreasonably based on the procedural failure to calculate the appropriate Guidelines range.

[11/21] US v. Armstrong
Convictions and sentences of multiple defendants for offenses relating to a scheme to dispense certain controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) expert testimony was not required to establish criminal violation of the CSA on the facts of the case; 2) defendant-registered nurse could be held liable for aiding and abetting under the CSA, even though she was not registered to dispense controlled substances; 3) aiding and abetting convictions could not stand on the CSA counts for which the alleged principal had been acquitted; 4) the jury charge was a correct statement of law; 5) evidence of tax evasion as a motive for under-reporting income was properly admitted; 6) there was sufficient evidence to support a money-laundering conviction; and 7) defendant-physician's sentence was reasonable.

Read More