Posts

What’s the primary reason a sentence is imposed: to punish the offender or to deter others? If it’s the former, then a white collar criminal – who has little to no chance of repeating his crime now that he’s tagged with a felony record, likely lost any professional licensure, and spent a ton of his hard-stolen cash on defending himself in court – shouldn’t serve a lengthy sentence. This is why Paul Musgrave was given a one-day sentence, with credit for for the day of processing – essentially no sentence at all....

A new ruling out of the Sixth Circuit should give hope to juvenile criminal inmates looking to get their sentencing reviewed. The Court of Appeals applied the law of recently decided SCOTUS cases Miller and Montgomery to great effect, thereby all but ensuring a loosening of many juvenile life sentences. Both cases as well as the case sub judice deal with the constitutionality of imposing a life sentence without the possibility of parole to a juvenile defendant....

Let’s take a mental trip back to 2000, when Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore each argued to the Supreme Court why he should be the 43rd president. Cynics like to say that the Florida recount was decided by one vote, in a 5-4 finish. Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of those five. We won’t speculate as to whether Justice Kennedy really was the swing vote — it may have been Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — but as the Nine consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate, Justice Kennedy is starting to look like the most powerful person in America....

FDIC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., No. 09-1052, concerned an action for breach of an insurance contract. The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that the district court erred in ruling that the fidelity bond at issue was not an “asset” under 12 U.S.C. section 1823(e), but to honor the FDIC’s position and allow it to recover would effectively strike the rescission clause from the bond....

In an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act action, the district court’s order denying reimbursement to plaintiff-parents for their child’s residential treatment is affirmed where: 1) the district court adequately responded to the hearing officer’s conclusions before reaching a contrary result; 2) parents’ failure to give notice was a relevant consideration when determining whether to deny reimbursement; and 3) the record contained ample evidence supporting the district court’s conclusion that the parents placed the child in residential care to treat medical, not educational, problems....

The facts of this case are pretty unremarkable. Guy (Arshavir Iskanian) drives a limo, gets into a dispute with his employer (CLS Transportation). Guy sues. Except, there was an arbitration clause. The trial court ordered arbitration, pursuant to the employment contract. An appellate panel reversed, with instructions for the trial court to consider Gentry v. Superior Court, a California Supreme Court case that, in limited circumstances, allows parties to escape “unconscionable” arbitration clauses....

Renchenski v. Piazza, 07-3530, involved an inmate’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that his forced participation in sex offender treatment therapy violates several constitutional rights. In reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the inmate’s procedural due process claim, the court remanded the matter as, because the inmate was never charged with nor convicted of a sex offense, the procedure he was afforded during his trial and conviction for the 1982 murder cannot serve as the sufficient procedural safeguard for Fourteenth Amendment purposes....

Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., No. 07-35115, involved an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by the mother of an autistic student. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of action, holding that the district court correctly found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims because plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before coming into federal court. Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Oakland, No....

For Sheldon Mann, it started when he got hit twice in one day playing high school football. The coach told him to get back into the game after the first collision without evaluating him for a concussion injury. After the second hit, Mann started suffering the effects of a traumatic brain injury, including headaches, hallucinations, short-term memory loss, and seizures. Mann would never play competitive football again. His parents sued on his behalf, alleging the coach did not protect their child....

Finding a government decision “arbitrary and capricious,” a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to remove a citizenship question it added to the 2020 census. In State of New York v. United States Department of Commerce, Judge Jesse Furman said the question violated statutory but not constitutional law. The judge said the Secretary of Commerce violated the public trust by including the citizenship question in the census. The question? “Is this person a citizen of the United States?...

If a judge follows you on Twitter, must he recuse himself from any future cases where you are a party or an attorney? Surely reading tweets doesn’t amount to an appearance of bias. What about a LinkedIn connection? It is, after all, the “professional” social network. Or what about Facebook? Of all the social networks, it is the most informal. Friendship gives you access to photos, wall postings, and other non-public information....

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer broke his collarbone over the Memorial Day long weekend as he was riding his bike in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Associated Press reports that the seventy-two year old Judge is no stranger to bike accidents. In fact, his 1993 bike accident was far worse, when he punctured a lung and suffered broken ribs after being hit by a car while riding across Harvard Square. Justice Breyer is no spring chicken; but at age seventy-two, he isn’t the oldest judge on the high court, either....

Alexa Kolby-Molinas entered the room to discuss abortion. In Kentucky, women were required to have an ultrasound and then listen to a physician explain the fetal images before an abortion. It was a tense meeting for Kolby-Molinas, and the conversation boiled over into an argument. But she was not there for an abortion, and it was not a doctor’s office. The attorney was arguing before the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals against the state’s fetal abortion law....

A conference of around 700 people hosted by televangelist Andrew Wommack continues in Colorado this week, despite state public health orders and decisions from federal judges. Last month, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of Andrew Wommack Ministries claiming that Colorado Governor Jared Polis’s order banning indoor gatherings of more than 175 people discriminated against religious events. Andrew Wommack Ministries points to civil rights protests in various Colorado cities throughout the summer, claiming that allowing such gatherings but barring their conference amounts to religious discrimination....

More players have entered the appellate ring in the first individual file-sharing case to go to trial. A coalition of libraries, public interest groups, and online privacy advocates filed a joint amicus brief in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting a reduced damage award against file-sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset. The Minnesota mom of four was originally sued by Capital Records in 2006 for copyright infringement. She was accused of posting 24 popular songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing program Kazaa....

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will soon have a rather hot case on their docket as the recently dismissed New York City climate change lawsuit will be appealed. Though the case was thrown out by the district court, climate change advocates may take some solace in Judge John Keenan’s direct acknowledgement of climate change, as he stated, in dicta that “climate change is a fact of life.” He also mentioned that the President pulled out of the Paris Accord and that climate change is only expected to get worse....

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal contesting a New York City policy refusing to allow outside groups to hold religious services on school facilities. The denial of cert, issued Monday, leaves in place the Second Circuit’s decision from last April, which held that the NYC Board of Ed.’s policy was a reasonable way to ensure that the City did not violate the separation of church and state. This may be the last round in litigation which began over 14 years ago, when the City first denied the request by Bronx Household of Faith to use school facilities for church services....

Conviction and sentence for drug crimes and conspiracy is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendants’ gang affiliation as it was relevant to proving the allegations set forth in the indictment; 2) court did not err in refusing to sever defendant Madrigal from the trial; 3) the court properly accepted the government’s Santiago proffer, as it gave the court sufficient evidence to conclude that the government met the preconditions for admission of co-conspirator statements; 4) the court did not err in allowing testimony about a prior consistent statement of a witness who was alleged to have fabricated testimony about defendant Delgado-Rios or in allowing defendant’s mother-in-law to testify; 5) the prosecutor’s disputed statement was not improper vouching, and the improper remark did not render defendant Delgado-Rios’s trial fundamentally unfair; 6) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant Meloro’s motion to bifurcate the trial; 7) the court did not err in enhancing defendant Tejada’s offense level based on leadership; and 8) the court properly sentenced defendant Madrigal based on the drug quantities within the range found by the jury....

Much like a procrastinating child, the U.S. Supreme Court always leaves the toughest tasks for last. With only three weeks left in the current tern however, some of the most intriguing landmark cases will be decided soon. Here are the four major opinions we’re anticipating for the next few weeks: Heightened scrutiny, rational basis, or standing? The group defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), isn’t a federal organization....

The Second Circuit reluctantly dismissed five lawsuits against Jordan’s Arab Bank on Tuesday, ruling that the bank was immune from suit under the Alien Tort Statute. Plaintiffs sought to hold the bank accountable for financing and facilitating terrorist attacks in the West Bank. Those suits were barred by Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the court explained, while inviting an en banc sitting or the High Court to overrule earlier decisions that have kept terror victims from recovering in court....