Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/08] People v. Varghese
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.

[05/08] U.S. v. Brooks
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.

[05/08] US v. Harris
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Sturgis
A final judgment and modified sentencing order which reduced defendant's minimum mandatory Level V sentence for attempted first-degree murder is reversed where defendant's pro se motion for a reduction of his statutorily mandated minimum Level V sentence could not be considered by the Superior Court, as it did not comport with the two conditions precedent required by Del. Code ann. Tit. 11, sections 4217(b) and 4217(f).

[05/06] State of Delaware v. Meades
Grant of defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence is affirmed where: 1) defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police detained him without a reasonable articulable suspicion that he committed, was committing, or was about to commit, a crime; and 2) the government failed to properly raise arguments that the defendant was not detained and that the police do not need to have any suspicion of criminal activity when they simply approach a person and ask some questions.

More...

White Collar Crime

[05/06] In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

[05/05] US v. Eberhard
Conviction, sentence, and restitution ordered against defendant for conspiracy, investment advisor fraud, mail and wire fraud, and obstruction of justice, are affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) application of newly-enacted 18 U.S.C. section 3771(a) was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Ex Post Facto and Due Process clauses; 2) the record did not support a four-level role enhancement under the sentencing guidelines; and 3) his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of a probation office's recommended terms.

[04/23] US v. Rittweger
Conviction of multiple defendants for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and commercial bribery, using facilities of interstate commerce to carry on and facilitate commercial bribery, wire fraud, and securities fraud is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying defendants' motion to sever under Fed. Crim. Pro. Rule 8(b) and Rule 14; and 2) the government violated Brady, when it failed to produce arguably exculpatory evidence with respect to a charged co-conspirator until the week of trial.

[04/23] US v. Livesay
On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Gall v. US, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), a sentence for a $1.4 billion fraud scheme is vacated and remanded where the district court committed Gall procedural error by: 1) legally erring in a U.S.S.G. section 5K1.1 downward departure; and 2) failing to adequately explain its sentence variance from the advisory Guidelines range to its chosen sentence in a way that allows for any meaningful appellate review.

[04/11] US v. Sullivan
Defendants' convictions and sentences for mail, wire, and bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit fraud and money laundering are affirmed over claims that: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions; 2) the government created a prejudicial variance between the indictment and proof at trial; 3) one defendant's trial should have been severed, and 4) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.

More...