Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Perry v. Brown
In an action arising out of Proposition 8 same-sex marriage litigation, in which a district court judge granted a motion to unseal a video recording of a trial presided over by his predecessor, which recording had purportedly been prepared by the trial judge for his in-chambers use only and was later placed in the record and sealed by him, the order unsealing the recording is reversed, where: 1) the Ninth Circuit assumed for the purposes of the case that the trial recording was subject to the common-law presumption of public access; and 2) the successor judge abused his discretion because the defendants in the trial reasonably relied on the trial judge's commitments in refraining from challenging his actions, and the setting aside of those commitments would compromise the integrity of the judicial process.

[02/02] Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC
In a suit alleging that a roommate-matching service website’s questions requiring disclosure of sex, sexual orientation and familial status, and its sorting, steering and matching of users based on those characteristics, violate the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, permanent injunction, and order awarding attorney's fees is: 1) vacated in part where plaintiffs had organizational standing; and 2) dismissed in part where the FHA and FEHA do not apply to the sharing of living units because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raises substantial constitutional concerns, and therefore the defendant's prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection is not forbidden by the FHA or FEHA.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/02] Marcavage v. National Park Service
In an action by an abortion protester under 42 USC Section 1983 against the National Park Service, the United States Department of the Interior, and two Park Service rangers, alleging violations of the plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause based on his arrest, the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim is affirmed, where: 1) the rangers were entitled to qualified immunity from the First and Fourth Amendment claims; 2) the plaintiff's "class of one" theory of an equal protection violation failed because he was not in all relevant respects like the others who shared the sidewalk on which he was arrested; and 3) the plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were properly dismissed as moot because of a change in Park Service regulations.

[02/01] McBurney v. Young
In a case brought by non-Virginia residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 USC section 1983 against Virginia officials because of their failure to provide the plaintiffs with requested public records on the basis that the plaintiffs were not Virginia residents, grant of summary judgment to the defendants is affirmed, where: 1) the plaintiffs' claim that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the federal constitution could not succeed as a matter of law; 2) the district court did not err in rejecting a dormant Commerce Clause claim.

[01/31] US v. Cain
In a prosecution of three individuals for racketeering and various related offenses, one defendant's RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions are reversed and all other convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court’s RICO instruction was legally erroneous, and prejudicial with regard to one defendant; 2) there were several errors in the calculation of the sentencing guidelines applicable to that defendant that needed to be corrected on remand; and 3) the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel of his choice when his retained attorney was disqualified by the magistrate judge overseeing pretrial proceedings.

[01/31] National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. McKee
In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a Maine law applicable to ballot question committees, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the state defendants is affirmed, where the statute satisfies constitutional standards, in that: 1) the appellants demonstrated no circumstances in which the statute fails to provide them fair warning of its reach, and hence their due process vagueness claim was rejected; 2) the provision's $100 reporting threshold is narrowly tailored to meet Maine's compelling interest in an informed electorate; and 3) the statute is not overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

Read More

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/03] People v. Gabriel
On appeal from conviction on charges of cultivation and possession of marijuana and other offenses, the judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant's credibility with evidence of his prior convictions for possession of an assault weapon and cultivation of marijuana, inasmuch as each of those offenses is a crime involving moral turpitude; and 2) any error in admitting the prior convictions evidence would have been harmless error, as it would not have resulted in prejudice requiring reversal.

[02/03] US v. Leahy
In a sentencing challenge brought by a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court's 10-year sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's application of enhancements under the sentencing guidelines and its inclusion of criminal history points was procedurally reasonable; and 2) the sentence, although the maximum possible, was substantively reasonable, as the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[02/03] US v. Culbertson
In a prosecution in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, where: 1) there was an inadequate factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea with respect to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible; and 2) the district court's error in accepting the defendant's plea was not harmless.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/02] People v. Brents
In a prosecution for first-degree murder and other crimes which resulted in a conviction and death sentence, the judgment is reversed as to the sentence of death, and the jury's true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation is stricken, where the jury was not properly instructed regarding the need to find an independent felonious purpose to kidnap the victim, but the convictions are otherwise upheld where: 1) hearsay statements were admissible under Evidence Code section 791(b) as prior consistent statements; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; 3) the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654's prohibition against multiple sentences for a single act or course of conduct by imposing a death sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the felony assault conviction; and 4) the trial court did not make multiple errors, so that the defendant's claim of cumulative prejudice necessarily failed.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

[02/01] Phan v. Holder
In a case in which USCIS denied an application for naturalization on the grounds that the applicant could not show good moral character because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) on its face, the appellant's conviction satisfied the statutory requirements for a "conviction" of an aggravated felony; 2) although a court set aside the conviction, it acted pursuant to rehabilitative goals, which do not control the use of the conviction in the immigration context.

Read More

Evidence

[02/03] People v. Gabriel
On appeal from conviction on charges of cultivation and possession of marijuana and other offenses, the judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to impeach the defendant's credibility with evidence of his prior convictions for possession of an assault weapon and cultivation of marijuana, inasmuch as each of those offenses is a crime involving moral turpitude; and 2) any error in admitting the prior convictions evidence would have been harmless error, as it would not have resulted in prejudice requiring reversal.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] People v. Brents
In a prosecution for first-degree murder and other crimes which resulted in a conviction and death sentence, the judgment is reversed as to the sentence of death, and the jury's true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation is stricken, where the jury was not properly instructed regarding the need to find an independent felonious purpose to kidnap the victim, but the convictions are otherwise upheld where: 1) hearsay statements were admissible under Evidence Code section 791(b) as prior consistent statements; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; 3) the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654's prohibition against multiple sentences for a single act or course of conduct by imposing a death sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the felony assault conviction; and 4) the trial court did not make multiple errors, so that the defendant's claim of cumulative prejudice necessarily failed.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

[01/31] US v. Cain
In a prosecution of three individuals for racketeering and various related offenses, one defendant's RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions are reversed and all other convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court’s RICO instruction was legally erroneous, and prejudicial with regard to one defendant; 2) there were several errors in the calculation of the sentencing guidelines applicable to that defendant that needed to be corrected on remand; and 3) the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel of his choice when his retained attorney was disqualified by the magistrate judge overseeing pretrial proceedings.

[01/31] Welch v. California State Teachers' Retirement Board
In an administrative mandamus proceeding brought by a former school teacher challenging the defendant’s denial of her application for disability retirement benefits, the trial court's denial of the writ petition is reversed and the case remanded, where: 1) misinformation received by the plaintiff from the defendant deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to develop contemporaneous evidence of her disability; 2) the defendant had the power under Education Code section 22308 to relieve the plaintiff from the consequences of her lack of proof because that lack of proof was attributable to the misinformation the defendant provided her.

[01/31] Lane v. Valverde
In a case in which a driver tested above the legal limit for blood alcohol and had his driving privilege suspended by the DMV, the trial court's grant of a petition for a writ of mandate directing the DMV to reinstate the petitioner's driving privilege is reversed, where the blood alcohol testing instrument was not out of compliance with the regulation when the petitioner was tested, even though it may have been out of compliance with 17 Cal. Code Regs. section 1221.4(a)(2)(B) when it was next tested after use on the petitioner.

[01/30] Bernard v. City of Oakland
In a case in which retired firefighters or their surviving spouses contended that the City of Oakland and Union City were required to make additional payments toward their health care coverage pursuant to an amendment to the Public Employee Medical Hospital Care Act, the trial court's denial of mandamus relief and dismissal of the actions are affirmed, where: 1) it was appropriate to defer to the health care plan administrator's interpretation of the statutory language in dispute; 2) there was no error in allowing a witness to testify as an expert, and even if there was error, it was harmless; and 3) there was no merit to an assertion that a contracting agency that elects to make increasing contributions under Government code section 22892(c) must also comply with the minimum contribution provisions of 22892(b).

Read More