Posts

The Senate has acquitted former President Trump for his role in the January 6 capitol riots. But his legal problems are far from over. There are currently a number of ongoing federal and state investigations by local and state officials. The first civil lawsuit that named the former president was filed by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, and the NAACP in federal District Court for the District of Colombia. The suit alleges that Trump, Giuliani, and the Proud Boys group used “harassment, intimidation, and threats” to stop the certification of the election results, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871....

Another win was secured for Uber drivers in O’Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc. as the Ninth Circuit denied the company’s request to appeal the recent order approving the class certification in a lawsuit by drivers who wished to be categorized as employees. The ruling means that drivers could potentially be relieved of gas and maintenance costs of their vehicles which they currently pay for themselves, according to Reuters. The final outcome of the Uber controversy will not only impact the business model of Uber, but other companies within the sharing economy as well....

District court’s 97 months’ imprisonment of a defendant in a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine is affirmed where: 1) the indictment contains each of the required elements and was sufficient to notify defendant of what the government intended to prove; 2) district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea; and 3) the sentence imposed was reasonable....

In a capital murder case, district court’s rulings denying defendant a writ of habeas corpus and denying his motion for relief from judgment and motion to alter or amend the judgment are affirmed where: 1) defendant’s motions, in substance, comprise a claim of ineffective or incompetent representation by federal habeas counsel, and the Antiterrorism Death Penalty Act specifically prohibits such grounds for relief; 2) defendant’s claims on appeal concerning ineffective assistance of counsel represented an impermissible broadening of claims to include federal bases before both the state courts and the district court; and 3) defendant’s claim that the trial court’s disparate treatment of the defense counsel’s requests to approach the bench deprived him of a fair trial failed as rulings on those requests did not reflect actual or presumed bias rising to the level of a constitutional violation or structural error....

A number of you were probably disappointed when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals announced last year that it was cancelling its 2012 Bench & Bar Conference. Colorado Springs may not be the most exotic location for a legal elbow-rubbing, but the Broadmoor resort – the proposed location for the conference – is the longest-running consecutive winner of both the AAA Five-Diamond and Forbes Travel Guide Five-Star awards. It looks swanky on the website....

Stephen Shapiro, a 1L at American University, has successfully convinced this nation’s highest court to review whether or not a lower district judge’s decision to dismiss his redistricting case was proper under the applicable state and federal law – specifically the Three-Judge Court Act. If SCOTUS rules the that the dismissal was improper, courts will review the issue of partisan gerrymandering within the context of the First Amendment. Shapiro’s case is a feather in the cap of the 55-year-old law student....

What are the limits of the “private search doctrine” when it comes to a computer? The Sixth Circuit answered that question last week in a case that is sure to make it to the Supreme Court. The Private Search Doctrine Once a private individual searches someone else’s stuff, that other person’s stuff is fair game for law enforcement, as the reasonable expectation of privacy is gone. The limit of a private search, though, is that law enforcement needs to have a “virtual certainty” that they’ll discover only evidence of criminality....

Francis Grady was on a mission to “blow up” a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, and when we was arrested, tried and convicted of arson and intentionally damaging property, he was surprised. With no wiggle room to get out of his conviction, he challenged the district court’s definition of “maliciously” on appeal. The Arson Grady went to Daniel Wolf’s house seeking gasoline and told him “that he wanted to blow up Planned Parenthood....

This week, the White House announced that the federal government is extending coronavirus pandemic-related foreclosure protections until June 30. The move ends any drama of what would happen when the previous deadline of March 31 approached. With millions suffering financial hardships, the announcement will give homeowners behind on their mortgage payments time to breathe. However, be aware that these extensions will not go on indefinitely, and they do not apply to every struggling homeowner....

US v. Suggs, 09-2700, concerned a challenge to the district court’s application at sentencing of a 4-level increase under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense, in a conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In affirming, the court held that possession alone is sufficient to bring a felony in which the firearm was involved within the meaning of section 2K2....

Apparently unwilling to take no for an answer, Fidelity Brokerage Services went around two clients and put up their shares in a deal that went bad. It got worse than that for AER Investors and its clients. Fidelity reported them to the government for “suspicious activity,” accusing them of manipulating the stock price. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves from the claim and beating it. In AER Advisors v....

Even the best running backs need to rely on their entire offensive line to break through and find the holes. But, for the Dallas Cowboy’s Ezekiel Elliott, he’s relying on his lawyers just to keep him on the field. Just this morning an emergency injunction was issued clearing him to play this Sunday. The Elliot case has been garnering national attention as there is quite a bit of controversy from nearly any angle you want to approach it....

In a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal, the petition is granted where petitioner’s conviction under California Penal Code section 273a(b) was not categorically a “crime of child abuse” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Read Fregozo v. Holder, No. 05-71268 Appellate Information Argued and Submitted February 12, 2009 Filed August 12, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Berzon Counsel...

In an action for breach of a franchise agreement, judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where 1) Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that his franchise agreement had been modified; and 2) Plaintiff’s unclean hands gave the District Court authority to deny him an equitable estoppel remedy. Read Haynes Trane Serv. Agency v. Am. Std., Inc., No. 07-1441 Appellate Information Filed July 6, 2009 Judges Opinion by Judge Hartz Counsel For Appellants: Marcy G....

California’s same-sex couples won another federal court victory over the Defense of Marriage Act last week. Oakland-based District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled on Thursday that the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, commonly known as CalPERS, must extend long-term care insurance to same-sex spouses and partners, reports the San Jose Mercury News. Judge Wilken is the second federal judge in California to rule that DOMA Section 3 is unconstitutional. In February, Judge Jeffrey White ruled DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Karen Golinski, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals employee....

Last minute requests for stays on executions are a common thing. Herbert Smulls’ case, which grabbed our attention due to a temporary stay granted by the Supreme Court last week, was not unusual in that regard. What was unusual, was that he was executed before his final request was decided by the High Court. Maybe his case wasn’t all that egregious. After all, he had already been heard by the High Court, and the final request was likely a desperate rehashing of earlier issues....

This week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Arizona law limiting benefits for same-sex domestic partners violates the Equal Protection Clause. The law, passed in 2009, eliminated health insurance coverage for same-sex partners of state employees. Arizona initially extended healthcare benefits to opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners of state employees in 2008. Later that year, Arizona voters approved the Marriage Protection Amendment, which amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman....

The Third Circuit really split hairs when it ruled that the content and justification of a Notice of Removal would determine whether or not an alien should be deported or not. Narinder Singh petitioned the Board of Immigration Appeals to review his case. He moved the BIA to dismiss an order by his Immigration Judge that he should be removed and that he also was ineligible for removal of that order under U....

In 2014, Forbes made “The Short Case for Insys Therapeutics,” conceding that the company’s sales performance compensation system was “a fairly dangerous way to market” its opioid products, but asserting that there would only be danger if “medical sales of this drug are leaking into the recreational market” and that “[p]harmaceutically pure opiates don’t cause much harm to anyone at all.” Yesterday, Forbes reported that Insys has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, after those marketing techniques led to federal civil and criminal investigations, the company pleading guilty to mail fraud, and its founder and three other executives being found guilty of racketeering conspiracy....

In plaintiff’s gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination. Read Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep’t, No. 08-1883 Appellate Information Argued: August 4, 2009...