Case Summaries
Criminal Law & Procedure
[02/07]
Farmer v. McDaniel On petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a death sentence that Nevada sought to reimpose on the basis of statutory aggravating circumstances different from those used in imposing an earlier invalid death sentence, the district court's denial of the petition is affirmed, as the state’s renewed attempt to seek a death sentence on grounds present in the defendant's first sentencing is not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
[02/07]
People v. Latham In a prosecution of parents for second-degree murder of their daughter by failing to obtain medical treatment for her in the days preceding her death, the judgment of conviction is affirmed, where there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's implied findings that the parents were aware that their failure to obtain medical treatment for their daughter endangered her life, and that they failed to obtain such medical treatment in conscious disregard of that risk.
[02/06]
People v. Murray In a prosecution of a 17-year-old for first degree murder and attempted murder that resulted in conviction and a sentence of life without parole, the judgment is affirmed as modified, where: 1) life-without-parole sentences are not categorically barred by the Eighth Amendment or article I, section 17 of the California Constitution; 2) the sentence was not unconstitutionally disproportionate when the nature of the crimes was measured against various mitigating circumstances; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion or violate the defendant's due process rights when it sentenced him.
[02/06]
US v. Reyes-Bonilla In a prosecution for being a deported alien found in the United States without permission, the conviction is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review of his prior removal order, and was exempt from the administrative-remedies exhaustion requirement because did not validly waive his right of appeal; and 2) the defendant was not properly advised of his due process right to counsel nor did he waive this right; but 3) this due process violation was not per se prejudicial; and 4) the defendant could not demonstrate that he had a plausible claim to relief at the time of removal proceedings, so he was not actually prejudiced as a result of the due process violations, and entry of the removal order was not fundamentally unfair.
[02/06]
Richardson v. Branker On a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC section 2254, the district court's judgment is: 1) reversed, insofar as it granted the petition, where the district court erred in considering the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under a de novo standard of review, and the state court did not hold unreasonably that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland; and 2) affirmed, insofar as it awarded summary judgment against the petitioner on his claims that the state withheld exculpatory evidence from him before trial, and that because he was mentally retarded, his sentence of death violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
[02/06]
People v. Enraca On automatic appeal of a death sentence upon conviction of first-degree murder and other crimes, the judgment is affirmed against numerous challenges, including those involving the admissibility of the defendant's confession, the refusal of the defendant's request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter due to heat of passion, jury instructions on perfect and imperfect self-defense, the failure of the court to advise the defendant of his right to testify or obtain an on-the-record waiver of that right, the failure of the court to give a limiting instruction, sua sponte, regarding the use of victim impact evidence, allegedly improper prosecutorial argument, lack of remorse as an aggravating circumstance, a refusal to instruct during the penalty phase on lingering doubt, and the Death Penalty Law and sentencing instructions.
More...
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.
|