Roderick Nunley pleaded guilty to the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 15-year-old in 1989. The state court judge sentenced him to death. Nunley had argued, before the Eight Circuit, that his capital sentence was a violation of state and federal precedent, since he was sentenced to death without a jury. According to Nunley, state and federal Supreme Court precedent required a jury sentencing for a death penalty to be permissible....
In an action alleging that defendant-employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating plaintiff’s employment rather than reasonably accommodating her disability, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to provide evidence that, with aid of a reasonable accommodation, she was qualified for either her pre-disability position or a suitable vacant position to which she could have been reassigned; and 2) in the absence of such evidence, an employer’s failure to engage in an interactive process intended to discover an accommodation suitable to both parties is immaterial....
Getting a divorce was not enough for Gwen Bergman. She not only wanted her husband out of her life, but out of this realm. Ms. Bergman dipped into her mother’s retirement account to the tune of $30,000 to hire a hit man to murder her husband. The problem? The man she hired was an undercover cop. Ooops. But that was just the beginning of Ms. Bergman’s lack of good judgment. She was duped yet again by her so-called attorney, if you could call him that....
Want to represent New Yorkers while keeping your only law office in Connecticut or New Jersey? Fuhgeddaboutit! The Second Circuit has upheld New York’s law requiring out-of-state attorneys to maintain a physical office in the state, reversing a district court opinion declaring the rule an unconstitutional violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Sorry Empire State moon lighters, it’s time to start looking for a lease. New York’s hostility to out-of-state attorneys is nothing new....
One town over from where your author grew up lies the City of Painesville, Ohio, where in 2010, Painesville police officers electrocuted David Lee Nall with a TASER for 26 seconds. Nall suffered a heart attack and permanent brain damage as a result. He needs assistance with daily life tasks and has trouble remembering things. All of this led to a civil rights lawsuit against the Painesville police. They asserted qualified immunity, but a federal district judge said “no way,” as did the Sixth Circuit yesterday....
There is a lot of hustle and bustle this time of year. Between holiday shopping, school events, and get-togethers with family and friends, many people are doing a lot of running around from one place to the next. This also means a lot of time driving — and maneuvering around crowded parking lots. If you’ve ever driven in a busy parking lot during the month of December, you know the kind of hazards you are up against: lots of traffic, drivers in a rush, distracted pedestrians, and — depending on where you live — snow and ice....
This week the Supreme Court agreed to review a federal appeals court finding that the process of appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges contained a “constitutional defect.” More than 100 patent disputes could be headed for a do-over, depending on how the Supreme Court rules. Last year the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which almost exclusively deals with patent issues, found that the way the Board’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were appointed violated the Appointments Clause....
The Regents of the University of California succeeding in having a three year old Title IX case dismissed on summary judgment. Although the facts of the case are wildly disturbing, the federal district court found that the circumstances surrounding the sexual misconduct were so far out of the control of the university that it could not be held liable. But before y’all go grab the pitchforks and start marching on the Berkeley administration buildings, the facts rather strongly support the dismissal on summary judgment....
Conviction and sentence of defendants for bank robbery related crimes affirmed US v. Beck, 09-2337, concerned a challenge to conviction of defendants for several crimes involving a bank robbery. In affirming, the court held that, although the district court erred by allowing a defendant’s probation officer to testify that she was a probation officer and by not allowing the defense attorneys to further question a witness about his potential bias, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt....
Defendant’s child pornography sentence is affirmed where “sexual contact,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 2246(3), includes self-masturbation, as long as the other requirements of the statute are satisfied, and thus defendant qualified for a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. section 2G2.1(b)(2)(A). Read US v. Shafer, No. 07-2574 Appellate Information Argued: December 2, 2008 Decided and Filed: July 21, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Moore Counsel For Appellant: Richard E. Zambon, Mitchell & Zambon, Grand Rapids, MI...
Defendant’s crack cocaine distribution sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court needed to determine whether defendant qualified as a career offender in light of Begay v. U.S., 128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), because: 1) a generic conviction for sexual battery under Ohio Rev. Code section 2907.03, defendant’s prior offense of conviction, was not categorically a “crime of violence”; and 2) the factual recitation of the crime provided in the presentence report did not indicate that defendant’s offense was a crime of violence....
Think the Supreme Court is too staid for hipsters? Think again. Ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes grew out a killer ‘stache, the Court has been home to secret hipsters, and every Court has had its most hipster justice. Justice George Sutherland sported a beard that would put most Brooklynites to shame, for example, and Justice Thurgood Marshall’s glasses had a very Rivers-Cuomo-circa-1994 vibe. Some say they didn’t even have lenses....
Benito Acosta’s First Amendment challenge to Costa Mesa, California’s ordinance restricting behavior at a city council meeting has been resurrected by the Ninth Circuit after the court agreed to rehear the case in an order released on Monday. A previous panel upheld the law in part, though it found the prohibition of “insolent” conduct to be overbroad. In 2005, Acosta accosted the City Council during discussion over a proposal to allow local police to enforce federal immigration laws....
Apple – you know, the company that makes your iPhone – got into a bit of trouble a few years ago when the United States started investigating allegations of price fixing in the e-book market. Eventually, Apple settled for $450 million, but did so in the most begrudging way possible. Ever since, it’s done nothing but complain about the compliance monitor the court appointed to ensure Apple was abiding by the terms of the settlement....
Entropy is a fundamental law of the universe, and all things will eventually descend into chaos. No particular reason to bring that up in a blog about the latest round of election litigation. What’s happening now? Here’s a rundown. SCOTUS Takes Up Voting Restrictions in Arizona A lower court held that two voting restrictions in Arizona unlawfully prohibited Black and Latino voters from exercising their rights in violation of the Civil Rights Act....
In In re: Roman, No. 08-9002, the Second Circuit publicly reprimanded an attorney, reciprocally suspended him for a six-month period based on a prior suspension imposed by the Ninth Circuit, and suspended him for an additional one-month period based on his misconduct in the Second Circuit, on the grounds that 1) the mitigating factors in this case, considered together, did not amount to a grave reason justifying a suspension different than that imposed by the Ninth Circuit; and 2) the court did not see complete overlap between the conduct addressed by the Ninth Circuit and that addressed in the present order....
Ever wonder how much the Second Circuit Court of Appeals hates frivolous claims? In October, the court not only upheld dismissal in Gallop v. Cheney, (the 9/11 Truther Lawsuit), it sanctioned the attorneys behind the case for filing a frivolous appeal. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of U.S. Army Specialist April Gallop, alleged that the Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77 - or any plane, for that matter - but bombed by a coalition of the most senior U....
Denial of Petition for Review of Moral Turpitude-Based Removal In Baraket v. Holder, No. 09-0739, a petition for review of the BIA’s order pretermitting petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal, the court denied the petition where petitioner committed acts between October 2001 and December 2001 that constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, and the BIA therefore properly pretermitted his application for cancellation of removal on the grounds that, within the meaning of 8 U....
In a petition to vacate an arbitration award on fraud and conversion claims arising out of the failure of the parties’ partnership, denial of the petition is affirmed where 1) the award did not manifestly disregard the law; and 2) the court of appeals was not authorized to review the panel’s factual findings and legal conclusions. Read Bosack v. Soward, No. 08-35248 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted June 4, 2009...
With a federal court mandate to reduce its prison overcrowding, and a looming budgetary crisis, California has begun to roll out its new early release program. The state has been ordered to trim its prison population in an effort to fix long known prison problems. The state would also like to reduce its $60 billion budget deficit. As a trailer to last year’s budget, California passed legislation aimed at trimming the state’s inmate population by 6,300 in 2010 through a combination of parole reforms and early release initiatives, such as the grant of time credits for inmates who complete educational programs....
