Firm News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/20] Metrish v. Lancaster
Defendant is not entitled to federal habeas relief, where: 1) after defendant's first trial but prior to his retrial, the Michigan Supreme Court 2001 decision in Carpenter, held that the diminished-capacity defense was not encompassed within the Michigan Legislature's comprehensive scheme for mental-illness defenses and thus could not be invoked by criminal defendants; 2) in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the history of Michigan's diminished-capacity defense, the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision applying Carpenter retroactively at defendant's retrial is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and thus, 3) defendant's due process rights were not violated.

[05/20] People v. Fernandez
Defendant's convictions for sexual abuse of his granddaughters is affirmed, where: 1) defendant forfeited his right to complain that the trial court erred when it permitted the prosecution to amend the information; 2) there was no instructional error; 3) defendant's assertions of prosecutorial misconduct fail, and even assuming any improper argument was made, the argument was harmless, and no prejudice has been, or can be, demonstrated; 4) defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lack merit; and 5) defendant has not shown cumulative error.

[05/17] Olivas-Motta v. Holder
Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude based on information in police reports, is granted, where: 1) a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is a generic crime whose description is complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" is an element of the crime and an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA are limited to the record of conviction to determine whether an alien was convicted of a CIMT; 2) the Attorney General wrongly decided, in Matter of Silva-Trevino, which held otherwise; and 3) the IJ and the BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

[05/17] US v. Greig
Sentence of eight years imposed on defendant, for various crimes she committed while on the run with fugitive, James "Whitey" Bulger, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that defendant's conduct was not limited to harboring Bulger and refusing to cap her offense level accordingly; 2) there was no error in applying the firearm or obstruction of justice enhancement; and 3) the judge's decision to let the family members of Bulger's victims speak was not an abuse of his wide discretion.

Read More

Evidence

[05/17] Olivas-Motta v. Holder
Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude based on information in police reports, is granted, where: 1) a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is a generic crime whose description is complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" is an element of the crime and an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA are limited to the record of conviction to determine whether an alien was convicted of a CIMT; 2) the Attorney General wrongly decided, in Matter of Silva-Trevino, which held otherwise; and 3) the IJ and the BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

[05/17] US v. Wurie
Defendant's conviction on drug charges is vacated, the denial of his motion to suppress is reversed, and the case is remanded, where: 1) the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not authorize the warrantless search of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee's person; and 2) the government has not argued that the search here was justified by exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement.

[05/17] US v. Williams
Defendant's conviction on firearms charges is affirmed, where: 1) a rational jury could find that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed both firearms; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant' statements about the robbery scheme and his handling of the revolver at the cookout.

[05/15] Pedeferri v. Seidner Enterprises
Judgment for plaintiff in personal injury suit is vacated and remanded, where: 1) a commercial vendor owes a duty of care to persons on or near the roadway who are injured as a result of the vendor's negligence in loading and securing cargo in a vehicle in a way that distracts the vehicle's driver; 2) the driver's negligence in driving under the influence of marijuana does not constitute a superseding cause as a matter of law; instead, the issue of superseding cause is one for the jury; but 3) the trial court abused its discretion in not striking, for lack of foundation, expert testimony that the driver in this case was a "chronic" marijuana user and thus unlikely to be impaired; and 4) because the driver's impairment was crucial to the allocation of fault between the driver and vendor, a new trial is required.

Read More

Sentencing

Read More