News

Crime

[05/08] Police: Victims' own photo helped cops nail robbery suspect
[05/08] Authorities: Fla. courthouse shooter had ammo, gas mask
[05/08] Pedophile suspect found in N.J.; played Santa, painted faces
[05/08] Charges dropped against central Fla. reality show director
[05/07] APNewsBreak: Sniper Muhammad seeks to halt death-row appeal

More...

Top Headlines

[05/08] House OKs $15B to buy and fix up foreclosed properties
[05/08] Plan offered to give people notice about rates on some loans
[05/08] Suit: 'Idyllic' Fla. Development Contained Bombs, Toxic Waste
[05/08] Facebook, states set bullying, predator safeguards
[05/08] Pedophile suspect found in N.J.; played Santa, painted faces

More...

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[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.

More...

Military

[05/05] OSI, Inc. v. US
In an action relating to the Air Force's use of certain land, now owned by plaintiff, as a landfill in prior decades, wherein plaintiff raised tort claims under the Federal Tort Acts (FTCA), claims of cost recovery under the CERCLA, and a citizen suit under the Resource Conversation Act (RCRA), summary judgment for government is affirmed where: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's RCRA citizen suit claim while federal facility remedial action was ongoing; and 2) the remaining aspects of plaintiff's appeal were without merit.

[05/02] Moran v. Peake
Denial of a veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is affirmed where the term "engaged in combat with the enemy" in 38 U.S.C. section 1154(b) requires that the veteran have personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality, as determined on a case-by-case basis.

More...

Sentencing

[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.

[05/06] 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).

More...