Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/16] US v. Williams
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.

[05/16] Reese v. Herbert
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.

More...

Sentencing

[05/16] US v. Perez
A person on supervised release had a right to cross-examine the laboratory technician who tested a urine sample containing an illegal drug, where: 1) a test report itself stated the sample was "dilute"; 2) the evidence presented showed the person on supervised release did not have an opportunity herself to dilute nor add a substance to the sample; and 3) the result of the urinalysis was critical to support a finding that the person on supervised release had possessed or used illegal drugs. The circuit court emphasizes that it does not hold that a releasee always has a right to cross-examine the technician who tested a urine sample.

[05/16] U.S. v. Wheeler
A conviction for using, carrying, and possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1) is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction; and 2) an instruction to the jury regarding the use of a firearm in relation to the underlying crime.

More...