On Point blog, page 25 of 40
Kevin Loughrin v. United States, USSC 13-316, cert granted 12/13/13
Whether the government must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
Lower court decision: United States v. Loughrin, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2013)
Are you defending someone charged with federal bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.
When a defendant asserts a “mental status” defense, Fifth Amendment allows state to use court-ordered psych exams in rebuttal
Kansas v. Cheever, USSC No. 12-609, 12/11/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Kansas v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
The Supreme Court unanimously holds that “where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.”
U.S. Supreme Court: Federal circuit court failed to give required “double deference” under AEDPA to state court’s resolution of ineffective assitance of counsel claim
Burt v. Titlow, USSC No. 12-414, 11/5/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Titlow v. Burt, 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012)
When a state prisoner asks a federal court to set aside a sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, our cases require that the federal court use a “‘doubly deferential’” standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.
Justice Prevails: A chat with Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Legal history buffs and women’s history enthusiasts might enjoy Cornell Alumni Magazine’s new interview of SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To read it, click here.
Freddie Lee Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882, cert. granted 10/21/13
Whether the Florida scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia.
Lower court opinion: Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. 2012)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), held that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to execute a person who is found to be mentally retarded.
Benjamin Robers v. United States, USSC No. 12-9012, cert. granted 10/21/13
Whether a defendant-who has fraudulently obtained a loan and thus owes restitution for the loan under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B) returns “any part” of the loan money by giving the lenders the collateral that secures the money?
Lower court opinion: United States v. Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012)
In this case the Court will resolve a circuit split about the calculation of restitution under 18 U.S.C.
Bruce Abramski v. United States, USSC No. 12-1493, cert. granted 10/15/13
1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?
2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required … to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).
Lorenzo Prado Navarette & Jose Prado Navarette v. California, USSC No. 12-9490, cert. granted 10/1/13
Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?
Lower court opinion: People v. Lorenzo Prado Navarette, et al., No. A132353, 2012 WL 4842651 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2013) (unpublished)
This is a very significant Fourth Amendment case that could change the law in Wisconsin by limiting State v.
United States v. James Alvin Castleman, USSC No. 12-1371, cert. granted 10/1/13
Whether [Castleman’s] Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Lower court opinion: United States v. James Alvin Castleman, 695 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2012)
This case will be important to federal practitioners who handle prosecutions under § 18 U.S.C.
Doyle Randall Paroline v. United States, USSC No. 12-8561, cert granted 6/27/13
What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?
Lower court opinion: In re: Amy Unknown: United States v. Paroline, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012)
This is an important case for anyone handling federal possession of child pornography cases,