FindLaw News

Criminal Law & Procedure Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedures

[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.

[05/16] People v. Breslin
In a prosecution for corporal injury to a cohabitant, in which the defendant pled guilty and then claimed that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to discover prior to the entry of her plea that the victim had attempted to recant his statement to the police, the conviction is affirmed, where the defendant's motion to withdraw the plea was properly denied because: 1) the defendant did not show that she entered her guilty plea under mistake, ignorance, or any other factor overcoming her exercise of free judgment; and 2) counsel did not act unreasonably, and regardless the defendant suffered no prejudice.

[05/16] US v. Valdivia
A conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to import heroin is affirmed against contentions that the district court erred in: 1) denying the defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act; 2) making inappropriate comments during trial and providing the jury with misleading instructions; 3) permitting the government to present inadmissible hearsay and improper overview testimony; 4) allowing a government fact witness to render expert testimony without the requisite qualification and advance notice; 5) denying multiple requests to suppress foreign wiretap evidence; and 6) improperly applying the guidelines during sentencing.

[05/16] People v. Shokur
In a criminal case in which an Afghani national who was in removal proceedings filed a "nonstatutory" motion to raise a postjudgment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis of counsel's failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, the superior court's denial of the motion is affirmed, where: 1) the court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion, as case law did not require a nonstatutory motion safety net to provide a remedy when other remedies through which relief might have been obtained were no longer available; and 2) in any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that he would have been entitled to relief as a result of prior counsel's conduct.

[05/16] US v. Cervantes
In a case in which police surveilled the defendant's car, stopped him for a traffic violation, and impounded and searched the car without a warrant, the district court's denial of a motion to suppress cocaine found in the car is reversed, where neither the automobile exception not the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement applied.

[05/16] US v. Powell
In a prosecution for making, or aiding and abetting the making of, a false entry in a bankruptcy-related document, conviction and sentence are affirmed against contentions that: 1) the district court erred in failing to provide several requested jury charges; 2) the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct; 3) defense counsel provided ineffective assistance; and 4) the district court improperly refused to apply a mitigating role adjustment in sentencing.

[05/16] US v. Etoty
A sentence for Social Security fraud and aggravated identity theft is affirmed, where: 1) there was no error in the two-prong test the district court employed to assess the applicability of the 2-level vulnerable victim enhancement; 2) the district court's finding that the victim was unusually vulnerable was not clearly erroneous; and 3) the defendant knew or should have known of the victim's unusual vulnerability, and knowledge of the precise nature of the vulnerability is not required.

Read More