In US v. Wilson, No. 09-3338, the court affirmed in part defendant’s convictions for conspiring to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and for possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it, holding that 1) the shooting as to which the district court admitted evidence was similar to the drug-trafficking charged in this case because it stemmed from a dispute over a drug debt; and 2) the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice.  However, the court reversed in part where there was no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that defendant knew, on June 9, 2007, that there was cocaine in a cohort’s car.

Gallagher v. Magner, No. 09-1209, involved consolidated actions by several owners and former owners of rental properties in St. Paul, Minnesota, challenging the City of St. Paul’s enforcement of its housing code.  The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants in part where 1) plaintiffs did not assert a claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework; 2) plaintiffs were not exercising a right under the Fair Housing Act by leasing to racial minorities; and 3) plaintiffs failed to reference a particular section of the St. Paul Code, let alone analyze why that section was vague.  However, the court reversed in part where the city’s aggressive enforcement of the Housing Code resulted in a disproportionate adverse effect on racial minorities, particularly African-Americans.

In US v. Aponte, No. 09-3461, the court reversed defendants’ convictions for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, holding that a reasonable jury must have had reasonable doubt as to defendants’ awareness of the drugs inside the cooler in the back of their vehicle.

In US v. Voice, No. 09-3260, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction for violating the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), holding that 1) the court rejected the suggestion that a savvy sex offender could move to a different city and avoid having to update his SORNA registration by sleeping in a different shelter or other location every night; 2) the court’s ruling on defendant’s objection, referring the jury to the jury instructions was sufficient to correct any misstatement of the governing law; and 3) defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the bags he left in an abandoned comfort station on tribal property and, in any event, he abandoned the bags and any privacy interest in them.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of US v. Wilson, No. 09-3338
  • Full Text of Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 09-2696
  • Full Text of Gallagher v. Magner, No. 09-1209
  • Full Text of US v. Aponte, No. 09-3461
  • Full Text of US v. Voice, No. 09-3260

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules