News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law And Procedure

[07/29] US v. Spencer
Defendant's sentence for two federal drug-trafficking felonies, which included a career offender enhancement, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's prior conviction for criminal property damage in the first degree under Hawaii law is categorically a "crime of violence" under the residual clause of section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines; 2) defendant is thus subject to the career offender enhancement under section 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines; and 3) defendant's claim that section 4B1.2(a)(2)'s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

[07/29] Aguilar v. Woodford
The district court's denial of petitioner's habeas corpus petition is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the prosecution's failure to disclose the police dog's history of making mistaken scent identifications violated Brady v. Maryland; and 2) the California Court of Appeal's decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Brady.

[07/26] Murdaugh v. Ryan
The district court's denial of defendant's habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and capital sentence for murder is: 1) reversed in part, where the district court erred in denying defendant's claim of error under Ring v. Arizona, which requires a jury determination of the presence or absence of aggravating factors supporting the death penalty, and the Ring error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the trial court's failure to find the mitigating factor regarding defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform it to the requirements of law, and thus on the trial court's imposition of a death sentence; and 2) otherwise affirmed.

[07/26] US v. Tetioukhine
Defendant's convictions for wire fraud, providing false information to obtain federal financial aid, making false statements in an application for a U.S. passport, and aggravated identity theft, arising out of his misappropriation of another man's identity, are affirmed, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in: 1) excluding defendant's proposed expert witness in Soviet adoption practices and cultural differences between the former Soviet Union and the United States; and 2) admitting evidence pertaining to defendant's 1996 larceny conviction.