Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Unpublished Decisions

U.S. v Aispuro-Aristegui, 2011 WL 6739433 (12/23/11) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - Of most interest, the 10th indicates it has problems with DEA Agent Perry's credibility even if our district judges don't. In a footnote, it says, although it must view the agent's testimony in the light most favorable to the denial of the suppression motion, it previously raised serious questions about the agent's veracity in U.S. v. Rangel, 519 F.3d 1258 (2008). The 10th goes on to express disappointment that over two years later the Rangel matter is still under investigation. The 10th holds that the officers could reasonably believe an arrested accomplice's statement that the defendant arriving to pick him up at the bus station was going to pay the arrestee for delivering his shoes containing heroin. The arrestee's possession of valuable heroin, his lack of luggage, the defendant's arrival in response to the defendant's call and the agent's experience corroborated the arrestee's claim.

U.S. v. Freeman, 2011 WL 6394538 (12/21/11) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The district court was not required to give an accomplice instruction where the accomplices' testimony was corroborated by phone records and recordings of the defendant's phone calls. And for appellate types, in a footnote, the 10th complains that the defendant only devotes one sentence to Brady while arguing the government violated Rule 16's disclosure requirements regarding an agent's showing to witnesses a photo of an accomplice's boyfriend as a possible suspect. The 10th concluded any violation did not warrant a mistrial, since the evidence was revealed during trial and the defense was able to cross about it.

U.S. v. Moser, 2011 WL 6318956 (12/19/11) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - When concealment of assets occurs after a bankruptcy trustee is appointed, each separate act of concealment is a separate violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 152. This was true here even though some of the concealing was with respect to the same parcel of land. The defendant made separate decisions to conceal additional agreements relating to the property.

Doyle v. Jones, 2011 WL 6318959 (12/19/11) (Okl. 12/19/11) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - It was not misadvice for counsel to tell the defendant she "could beat the case," which prompted the defendant to go to trial, instead of taking a plea offer. Counsel did not say she "would beat the case." "Could beat the case" might refer to a mere possibility of success.