Published Decisions
U.S. v. Helmstetter, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 744634 (10th Cir. March 13, 2007)
The 10th declines to overrule its precedent that use of a peremptory challenge based on age of the juror does not raise an equal protection, Batson-type issue–a position reached by all circuits which have ruled on the issue.
No 6 A violation–district court did not restrict D’s cross examination of co-D about her drug use; it only granted the co-D’s motion in limine regarding the government’s cross on the topic, and left it open for further ruling regarding D’s cross. D never tried to cross her on her drug use. No DP violation in court’s restricting D from testifying about co-D’s drug use.(Theory in counterfeiting case: he doled money out to her to control her from using it on drugs, unaware that it was counterfeit–he was not forcing her pass the money). D was allowed to testify of his concern about her inability to control her finances and the inquiry was of very low relevance but prejudicial to co-D.
West v. Keef, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 756433 (10th Cir. March 14, 2007)
Violation of state law (in this case emergency detention of mentally ill) does not, without more, entail a federal violation of due process. Police had probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the home without a warrant when P’s 12 year old son called 911 and said his mother was trying to kill herself. Police observations of a generally unresponsive P slumped over the sink with a knife provided the exigent circumstances for her detention.
The 10th declines to overrule its precedent that use of a peremptory challenge based on age of the juror does not raise an equal protection, Batson-type issue–a position reached by all circuits which have ruled on the issue.
No 6 A violation–district court did not restrict D’s cross examination of co-D about her drug use; it only granted the co-D’s motion in limine regarding the government’s cross on the topic, and left it open for further ruling regarding D’s cross. D never tried to cross her on her drug use. No DP violation in court’s restricting D from testifying about co-D’s drug use.(Theory in counterfeiting case: he doled money out to her to control her from using it on drugs, unaware that it was counterfeit–he was not forcing her pass the money). D was allowed to testify of his concern about her inability to control her finances and the inquiry was of very low relevance but prejudicial to co-D.
West v. Keef, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 756433 (10th Cir. March 14, 2007)
Violation of state law (in this case emergency detention of mentally ill) does not, without more, entail a federal violation of due process. Police had probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the home without a warrant when P’s 12 year old son called 911 and said his mother was trying to kill herself. Police observations of a generally unresponsive P slumped over the sink with a knife provided the exigent circumstances for her detention.
posted by Anonymous at 2:53 PM
<< Home