Criminal Law News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/07] Farmer v. McDaniel
On petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a death sentence that Nevada sought to reimpose on the basis of statutory aggravating circumstances different from those used in imposing an earlier invalid death sentence, the district court's denial of the petition is affirmed, as the state’s renewed attempt to seek a death sentence on grounds present in the defendant's first sentencing is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

[02/06] People v. Murray
In a prosecution of a 17-year-old for first degree murder and attempted murder that resulted in conviction and a sentence of life without parole, the judgment is affirmed as modified, where: 1) life-without-parole sentences are not categorically barred by the Eighth Amendment or article I, section 17 of the California Constitution; 2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate when the nature of the crimes was measured against various mitigating circumstances; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion or violate the defendant's due process rights when it sentenced him.

[02/06] US v. Reyes-Bonilla
In a prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States without permission, the conviction is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of his prior removal order, and was exempt from the administrative-remedies exhaustion requirement because did not validly waive his right of appeal; and 2) the defendant was not properly advised of his due process right to counsel nor did he waive this right; but 3) this due process violation was not per se prejudicial; and 4) the defendant could not demonstrate that he had a plausible claim to relief at the time of removal proceedings, so he was not actually prejudiced as a result of the due process violations, and entry of the removal order was not fundamentally unfair.

[02/06] Richardson v. Branker
On a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC section 2254, the district court's judgment is: 1) reversed, insofar as it granted the petition, where the district court erred in considering the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under a de novo standard of review, and the state court did not hold unreasonably that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland; and 2) affirmed, insofar as it awarded summary judgment against the petitioner on his claims that the state withheld exculpatory evidence from him before trial, and that because he was mentally retarded, his sentence of death violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

[02/06] People v. Enraca
On automatic appeal of a death sentence upon conviction of first-degree murder and other crimes, the judgment is affirmed against numerous challenges, including those involving the admissibility of the defendant's confession, the refusal of the defendant's request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter due to heat of passion, jury instructions on perfect and imperfect self-defense, the failure of the court to advise the defendant of his right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right, the failure of the court to give a limiting instruction, sua sponte, regarding the use of victim impact evidence, allegedly improper prosecutorial argument, lack of remorse as an aggravating circumstance, a refusal to instruct during the penalty phase on lingering doubt, and the Death Penalty Law and sentencing instructions.

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

Read More

Asset Forfeiture

[12/22] US v. Twenty Miljam-350 IED Jammers
In a case seeking civil in rem forfeiture, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. Section 401(a), of certain communication-jamming devices that the owner was charged with illegally attempting to export, the district court's judgment ordering forfeiture is affirmed where: 1) the claimant's stipulation not to contest forfeiture in exchange for dismissal of a criminal complaint was enforceable; and 2) the claimant lacked Article III standing to oppose the forfeiture because it could not cause him injury.

[11/30] US v. Martin
In an appeal from an order of the district court directing a criminal forfeiture, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 and after the appellants were convicted on drug-related offenses, order is affirmed where the Rule 32.2 deadline, as it then existed, is most persuasively understood as a time-related directive rather than a jurisdictional condition, and because appellants were on notice at the time of sentencing that the district court would enter forfeiture orders.

[11/22] US v. Zorrilla-Echevarria
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing petitioners' application for ancillary hearings to a criminal forfeiture proceedings under 31 U.S.C. sections 5317(c)(1) and 5332(b)(2), judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the entry of the money judgment order of forfeiture with respect to defendant; and 2) vacated in part as to the portion of the final order of forfeiture ordering that the attached $543,731 in cash shall be used to satisfy the money judgment.

[11/14] LA County Metro. Trans. Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC
In an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals concerning the scope of the waiver provisions of California's "quick-take" eminent domain procedure, Code Civ. Proc. sections 1255.010, 1255.410, judgment is reversed because if a lender holding a lien on condemned property applies to withdraw a portion of a Section 1255.210 deposit, and the property owner does not object to the application, the lender's withdrawal does not constitute a waiver of the property owner's claims and defenses under Section 1255.260.

[11/03] People v. The North River Ins. Co.
In an appeal from an order granting defendant's motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail, judgment is affirmed where the trial court correctly found that Code of Civil Procedure section 473 applied to the proceeding.

[10/28] US v. Newman
In appeals from two separate judgments of the district court concerning negotiated criminal forfeitures, judgments are reversed where the court erred in eliminating, or reducing to a trivial amount, the parties' negotiated forfeiture agreements.

Read More

Sentencing

Read More