News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[09/05] Smiley v. Thurmer
In a first-degree murder case, grant of a petition for habeas relief is affirmed where: 1) the police who arrested petitioner failed to give proper Miranda warnings; and 2) admission of statements made after the failure to Mirandize was prejudicial to petitioner.

[09/05] US v. Allday
Sentence for receiving sexually explicit images of minors is affirmed over objections that the district court impermissibly applied a presumption of reasonableness to the sentencing range calculated under the guidelines.

[09/05] Carvajal v. Dominguez
In a suit alleging constitutional violations by a DEA officer in connection with the criminal prosecution of plaintiff for money laundering, denial of summary judgment for defendant on one of four claims is reversed where: 1) the denial of defendant's claim of qualified immunity was an appealable collateral order; and 2) defendant committed no Brady violation and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

[09/05] US v. Reyes
Convictions for conspiracy, bank robbery, and a handgun crime are affirmed where: 1) evidence of prior bank robberies in which defendant had participated was erroneously admitted, but the error was harmless; 2) limitations on defendant's cross-examination of a government witness did not violate the Confrontation Clause; and 3) a motion for new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence was properly denied where the new evidence proffered would not have affected the verdict.

[09/05] US v. Moore
Sentences for unrelated crack cocaine offenses are affirmed where: 1) the courts properly determined that they lacked authority under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) to grant the requested sentence reductions in these cases; 2) when a retroactively applicable guideline amendment reduces a defendant's base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his or her sentence was based, section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a reduction in sentence; and 3) although Amendment 706 to the Sentencing Guidelines would reduce the base offense levels applicable to the defendants, it would not affect their guideline ranges because they were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. section 4B1.1.

More...

Family Law

[09/03] Johansen v. Comm. of Internal Revenue
In a tax case arising out of a divorce, a holding by the Tax Court that spousal support payments qualify as alimony to be reported as income by the payee is affirmed where: 1) state law requires that spousal support payments terminate on the death of either spouse unless otherwise agreed in writing; and 2) the divorce agreement does not extend spousal support payments beyond death of either party.

[09/03] Alanis-Alvarado v. Mukasey
Petition for review of deportation order is denied where petitioner violated a protection order issued under California Family Code Section 6320, which by definition fits categorically within the protection orders whose violation qualifies as a deportable offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[08/29] In the Interest of M.N.
In a custody case, affirmation of the termination of a mother's parental rights on the basis of untimely filing of a statement of points for appeal is reversed where the trial court was permitted to grant a motion to extend the time for filing the statement of points on a showing of good cause.

[08/27] David L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Regarding juvenile court order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing, petition for writ of mandate and request for stay are denied where: 1) section 366.3, which provides for a new 366.26 hearing for children under the guardianship, does not require a modification petition; and 2) the prima facie evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to set a 366.26 hearing.

[08/27] Sheri T. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Petition seeking extraordinary relief from juvenile court order setting new permanent plan selection hearing is denied where: 1) order setting a new permanent plan selection hearing was correct; 2) when circumstances have changed, the court should hold a permanent plan selection hearing unless the mother proves there is a compelling reason not to do so; and 3) the mother cannot show prejudice from the juvenile court's decision to hold a new permanent plan selection hearing and she will have an opportunity to fully litigate the issues at that time.

More...