The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced Wednesday that U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez “engaged in abusive or harassing behavior” constituting a rare finding of judicial misconduct when he ordered a U.S.
Late one night a Pittsburgh man—a felon on probation—and his girlfriend see shadowy figures breaking into her car behind their house. Girlfriend gets out her handgun she keeps in a safe, hands it to the man, and takes her three kids out of the house and to safety. Man then confronts the figures, who flee, but while fleeing he fires shots and hits one in the thigh. Man dutifully calls his probation officer and admits to this—for which he's charged with being a felon "in possession" and sentenced to 84 months imprisonment. Second Amendment violation?
Man and woman conspire to kill woman's former husband, which they accomplish. Both are sentenced to death. Yikes! Turns out the judge (ex parte) tasked the prosecutor with drafting the sentencing opinion with the aid of the judge's notes. (The judge and prosecutor are publicly reprimanded.) The condemned man gets re-sentenced to death by the same judge who refused to consider new mitigating evidence and in an opinion that is almost identical to the original. Sixth Circuit: Habeas granted.
In 1971, man pleads guilty to killing his wife. After a few years behind bars he gets out, gets a girlfriend, and then kills her. He agrees to trust his fate to a 3-judge panel (whose identities he knows ahead of time) instead of a jury. Which gives him the death penalty. And after some appeals gives him another one. Later he wins at the Sixth Circuit in 2007 to receive another resentencing. Only problem is it's been so long that all 3 judges are dead or retired. So they use a new 3-judge panel. Which gives him the death penalty.
In July, the Fourth Circuit (over a dissent) held that "geofence" warrants ordering Google to provide law enforcement with information about every account holder who enters a particular area in a particular time period are totally cool under the Fourth Amendment. But wait! A mere month later, here comes the Fifth Circuit to tell us that these same warrants are, in fact, totally bogus under the Fourth Amendment!
AH Datalytics has launched a “Real-Time” crime index, (RTCI), online. (access index). AH Datalytics launched the real-time crime index in an effort to “aid in the need for a faster understanding and visualization of national, state, and local crime trends.” AH Datalytics acknowledges certain crime data is under-reported to police and agencies can fail to provide complete or accurate information.
New York man is prosecuted for sending death threats to congresspersons and Fox News hosts. A jury of 11 convicts. Split Second Circuit: That's OK. A 12-person jury isn't a constitutional right. And no prejudice suffered: The threats were clearly real (e.g., "Laura Ingraham, I am going to personally kill you"), so the error was harmless. Dissent: Not OK. Twelve jurors are "fundamental" to criminal trials, so this is a structural error.
Twenty years after being convicted of (vehemently denied) cocaine possession, Erma Wilson learned that the Midland County, Tex. prosecutor (Weldon "Ralph" Petty) on her case was also moonlighting as a law clerk for the presiding judge, a flagrant violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial. Yikes! Though she never served any jail time on the eight-year suspended sentence, the conviction meant she's been unable to pursue a lifelong dream of becoming a nurse. Can she sue for money damages?
Man: The enhancement that led to my 13-year prison sentence finding pointing a gun meant I "physically restrained" the convenience store cashier is wrong. Eleventh Circuit: Not wrong. Concurrence 1: Not wrong, but only because of our dumb prior caselaw which we have to follow "even if we disagree with it or think that prior panels have overlooked important arguments." Concurrence 2: I welcome our new AI overlords' help in this case.
Ecuadoran national challenges his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States on the grounds that his initial removal was unlawful and the prohibition on reentry was enacted for super racist reasons. Second Circuit: His initial removal was lawful. And though the law's legislative history contains some shocking comments—heck, one legislator observed in 1952, "though I am not a follower of Hitler . . . there is something to it"—those views can't be attributed to all of Congress.