Around the Nation

Criminal Law Practitioner Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 2 2014 Around the Nation Calen Weiss American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/clp Part of the Courts Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Weiss, Calen (2014) "Around the Nation," Criminal Law Practitioner: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/clp/vol2/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Criminal Law Practitioner by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact . THE NATION Supreme Court - Kaley . United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014). The Supreme Court held in a 6-3 opinion that the defendants did not have a fifth or sixth amendment right to challenge a grand jury ruling that froze assets that the defendants required to pay their counsel. Kerri and Brian Kaley had planned to use a S5oo,ooo certificate of deposit to pay their defense attorney, but were subject to a grand jury § 853(e) (1) pre-trial asset seizure that effectively froze all assets that were traceable to the offense. The Supreme Court, following Monsanto . United States, held that a defendant is not entitled to judicial re-determination of a grand jury's probable cause ruling that property will ultimately be proved forfeitable, regardless of whether the property was going to be used to pay counsel. fendant's voluntary intoxicaLion defense. Cheever argued that the results of the courtordered psychiatric examination were a Fifth Amendment violation because he had "neither initiated the mental examination nor put his mental capacity in dispute." The prosecution's introduction of the state examiner's evidence was consistent with the rules of rebuttal testimony because Cheever had offered expert testimony that he was unable to form the requisite mens rea. United States . Davila, 133 S.Ct. 2139 (2013). A magistrate judge's suggestion to a defendant that the defendant plead guilty does not result in an automatic vacatur of the guilty plea if the record shows no prejudice to the defendant's decision to plead guilty. Davila requested new counsel after his attorney did not discuss trial strategy and instead told him to plead guilty. The magistrate judge told Davila that he would not get new counsel, and given the strength of the government's case, it may be best that he plead guilty. The Supreme Court held that though the judge violated rule - n(c)(i), it was not a "highly ex- ceptional error" requiring antomatic vacuLor. Rather, the court should examine the plea with all the facts of trial taken 3 - Kansas (. Cheever, 1 4 S. Ct. into account and determine 596 (20i 3 ). The Supreme Court whether Davila would have distinguished Buchanan .Ken- gone to trial but for the judge's tacky, finding that the pros- comments. ecution was permitted to use a state examiner to rebut the de- Published Commons @ American 8 by Digital Washington College of Law University Fall 2014 Washington College of Law, 2014 BY CALEN WEISS - Fernandez r. Calfornia, L34 S. Ct. 1126 (2014). The Supreme Court held in a 6-3 ruling that a warrantless consent search is permissible, even if a potentially objecting occupant is only absent because he is in police custody. Police observed Fernandez run into an apartment while observing a violent robbery. Officers removed him from the apartment and put him in police custody upon suspicion that he had battered another occupant. Police later gained access to the residence on the consent of the other occupant while Fernandez was in custody. The court held that because police had reasonable grounds to remove Fernandez from the property, he was in the position of any other occupant absent and unable to object to the search. - Hinton e Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1o81 (2014). The Court found that an attorney's refusal to request additional funds to replace an expert to rebut the State's case qualified as inadequate assistance of counsel. Htinton's attorney mistakenly believed that anAlabamajudge could only grant him Si,ooo to hire an expert witness. As a result, he hired a deficient expert and Hinton was found guilty. The Court held that an attorney's ignorance of a point of law fundamental to his case combined with his failure to perform basic research on that point is a quintessential example of unreasonable performance Linder Strickland Washington. . Weiss: Around the Nation 1 Criminal Law Practitioner, Vol. 2 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 2 1st Circuit - Ponte (. Steelcase, 741 F3d 31o (ist Cir. 2014). The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that a male employer had not created a hostile work environment when he drove his female employee home and rested his hand on her shoulder. The court found that this sort of contact was not severe or pervasive to create the necessary requirements to eventually warrant a retaliation or discrimination claim. - Kosilek e. Spencer, 740 E3d 733 (ist Cir. 2014). A rehearing en banc has been granted and an original opinion was withdrawn in this case involving a state prisoner who sought treatment for her gender identity disorder. Michelle Kosilek fled suit when the DOC refused to provide her with gender reassignment surgery. The First Circuit held that the district court was correct in finding that the DOC violated Kosilek's eighth amendment rights because Kosilek has a serious need for the surgery that was not provided to her. 2 nd Circuit - United States e Crandall, No. 12-3313-CR, 2014 WL 138665o (2nd Cir. 2014). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Sixth Amendment requires reasonable accommodations for hearing-impaired defendants during judicial proceedings, but a judge is only required to provide acfor impaircommodations ments that he is informed of, or should be reasonably aware of. Several times during his trial, Crandall asked for the microphone to be moved closer or the volume to be turned up, to which the judge complied. Because Crandall testified without any issue and was provided with assistance when counsel asked, the court found that the trial judge had made reasonable accommodations to comport with the Sixth Amendment. amount of counterfeit currency. Upon determination that the sentence was procedurally sound, the court followed the standard in United States Tomko and affirmed the sentence because it was within the range of sentencing guidelines and "more likely to be reasonable than those that fall outside this range." . Circuit Courts 4 th Circuit - United States . Washington, 743 E3d 938 (4th Cir. 2014). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the government is not required to prove that the defendant had knowl3 rd edge that a victim is a minor to - United States ( Gumbs, No 12- prove interstate transportation 363o, 2 (...truncated)