Circuit Snippets

A defendant charged with growing marijuana on his farm was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense by the trial court's evidentiary rulings, the 9th Circuit held. The court denied the defendant's Rule 16 request to compel to government to disclose information about the marijuana-growing activities of Mexican drug trafficking organizations and ruled that the defendant could not bring up the issue at trial. Defendant sought to prove that a Mexican organization -- and not him -- was responsible. The district court had considered the proposed evidence to be irrelevant, but the Circuit Court disagreed, saying that evidence that a Mexican drug trafficking organization was responsible -- any such organization -- made it less likely the defendant was responsible. US v. Stever, No. 09-30004 (9th Cir. 5/4/10)

Where one user of a computer consents to its seizure, the fact that the other user objects does not make the seizure and search of the computer unlawful, the Third Circuit held. The Court disagreed with the 9th Circuit's reasoning that Georgia v. Randolph, 547 US 103 (2006) (holding one resident's objection to a search will override another resident's consent), extended beyond searches of homes. US v. King, No. 09-1861 (3d Cir. 4/30/10)

A cell phone owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the call log stored on his phone, but the search was ok because the phone was in plain view in the defendant's car when he was arrested. State v. Boyd, No. SC 17719 (Conn. 4/27/20)

When a defendant dies during his direct appeal, his conviction, sentence, and also any restitution order are abated. US v. Rich, No. 08-30153 (9th Cir. 5/3/10)

A defendant need not know that a license is required to do business with Iran before being convicted of willfully violating the trade embargo, the 9th Circuit held. All the defendant needs to know is that his conduct was unlawful. US v. Mousavi, No. 08-50454 (9th CIr. 5/5/10)

A person accused of illegally reentering the United States has been previously "removed" even if he was deported to the wrong country, the 7th Circuit held. In this case, the El Salvadoran defendant was removed to Mexico, and not El Salvador. 8 USC 1326 does not require removal in a specific manner or to a specific place, the 7th Circuit said. US v. Sanchez, No. 09-2666 (7th Cir. 4/28/10)

A lawyer submitting an Anders brief is an officer of the court who is essentially offering an expert opinion that the appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the court must have faith that the attorney reviewed the entire record. Where appointed appellate counsel failed to include any mention of pretrial proceedings or the conduct of the defendant's five-day trial, Anders brief was not sufficient, saying "it will be the unusual case when a lawyer representing a defendant convicted at trial cannot identify anything but sentencing issues to include in an Anders submission." The attorney's motion to withdraw was denied and she was ordered to submit a new brief. US v. Palmer, No. 09-2558 (7th Cir. 4/12/10)

The prosecutor did not commit any misconduct when, during defendant's trial for unlawful possession of firearms, the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the hollow-tipped bullets and extended magazine found with the firearms; the references were properly allowed to provide background and context for the charged crime. US v. Byers, No. 09-1917 (8th Cir. 4/28/20)

A California conviction for negligent discharge of a firearm is not a crime of violence for purposes of enhancing a defendant's sentence under USSG 2K2.1(a), the 9th Circuit held. US v. Coronado, No. 09-50154 (9th Cir. 5/3/10)