- [04/27] Hollywood producer testifies in Robert Durst murder case
- [04/27] Coulter's Berkeley speech canceled, police prep for violence
- [04/27] Arkansas prepares to conclude aggressive execution schedule
- [04/07] Hyundai and Kia recall 1.2M cars for possible engine failure
- [03/30] Lawsuit: Sword blade flew from handle, pierced teen's head
Criminal Law & Procedure
[04/28] US v. Rodriguez
In a motion for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2), the district court's denial is affirmed, over defendant's claim that the denial is substantive unreasonable and the government's novel challenge to the court's appellate jurisdiction under , where: 1) jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1291; and 2) the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence based upon the 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors, the threat to public safety and defendant's post-sentencing conduct.
[04/27] People v. Pou
Sentence and conviction of possession of cocaine for sale, Health and Safety Code section 11352, and possession of ecstasy for sale, Health and Safety Code section 11378, are affirmed, over defendant's challenge to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless entry and search of his home by law enforcement officers, where the officers' initial entry and search was justified under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.
[04/27] People v. Guzman
Conviction on two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years old is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in admitting a recorded telephone conversation between a defense witness and the mother of one of the victims, in violation of the exclusionary rule in Penal Code section 632(d) which bars the admission of evidence obtained as a result of recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties, where the 'Right to Truth-in-Evidence' provision of the California Constitution, Cal. Const., art. I, section 28(f)(2), as enacted by the passage of Proposition 8 in 1982, abrogated that exclusionary rule to the extent it is invoked to suppress relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding.
[04/27] Robinson v. Thomas
In actions under 28 U.S.C. sections 2241, brought by petitioners seeking post-conviction relief in state court pursuant to North Carolina's Racial Justice Act (RJA), N.C. Gen. Stat. sections 15A-2010 to 2012 (2009) (repealed 2013),.each maintaining that a second RJA proceeding would violate their rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the district court's decision to abstain from intervening in petitioners? ongoing state court proceedings is affirmed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), under the precept that a federal court 'should not act to restrain a [state] criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.'
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.