Criminal Law News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/17] US v. Williams
In a case in which a government agent questioned the defendant in an apartment where he was arrested without first issuing Miranda warnings, and two hours later the defendant confessed at the station house, an order of the district court suppressing the confession is reversed, where the district court erred in suppressing the confession as the product of a deliberate two-step interrogation strategy intended to undermine the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

[05/17] US v. Batista
In a prosecution of two individuals in connection with their membership in a narcotics trafficking ring, convictions and sentences are affirmed against numerous contentions, including: 1) as to one defendant, that a) at least one juror slept during parts of the trial, depriving the defendant of due process, b) the district court violated the Court Interpreters Act, c) the district court erred in applying sentencing enhancements, and d) the government had engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during its summation; and 2) as to the other defendant, the sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

[05/17] Rodgers v. Marshall
The district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus is reversed and the case remanded, where: 1) the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when the state trial court denied his timely request for representation for a new trial motion based on the erroneous notion that once waived, the right to counsel cannot be reasserted; and 2) the defendant was not required to prove prejudice, and a harmless error analysis was not required.

[05/17] US v. David
In a prosecution that resulted in a conviction for conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and of conspiring to import and importing a controlled substance, the case is remanded for resentencing so that the district court can reevaluate the various considerations identified by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, including, as appropriate, the nature, chemical structure, and intended neurological effects of the substance contained in the pills at issue, and to thereby determine the most closely related substance referenced in the Guidelines and the appropriate marijuana equivalency of the mixture.

[05/17] Rolan v. Coleman
The district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus is affirmed, where: 1) certain statements by the prosecutor did not constitute a denial of due process; 2) the prosecutor's comments about the defendant's post-arrest silence did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and 3) the trial court's decision to admit a deceased witness's testimony from the defendant's original trial did not violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause by depriving him of an adequate cross-examination of the witness.

[05/16] Bracher v. Superior Court (People)
In cases in which misdemeanor defendants in El Dorado County were required by the trial court to be present at a readiness and settlement conference, a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition is granted, where: 1) the case was not moot because the petition presented an issue that was likely to recur while evading review; and 2) a blanket court policy requiring that all misdemeanor defendants personally appear at a readiness and settlement conference is inconsistent with applicable case law and the statutory scheme.

Read More

Asset Forfeiture

[02/21] US v. $133,420.00 in United States Currency
In a civil forfeiture action instituted by the government after it seized $133,420 found in the car of a person stopped by the police, the district court's grant of the government's motion for summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the owner of the car could not show any evidence that he owned or lawfully possessed the money; 2) his ambiguous verified claim was not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his Article III standing; and 3) the district court permissibly struck his response to a government interrogatory to prevent him from improperly using the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as both a sword and shield.

[02/16] US v. Oregon
In a challenge by two states to a criminal forfeiture proceeding involving seizure from escrow accounts established for the benefit of states in which a cigarette manufacturer sold its products, the district court's amendment of the forfeiture order in favor of the states is vacated, where: 1) the states had a legal interest in the forfeited property and thus had standing; but 2) the states failed to carry their burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their legal interest in the escrow funds was superior to the cigarette manufacturer's during the relevant time period.

[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.

Read More

Sentencing

Read More