 |
| Find dockets from Federal trial courts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Election 2008
Will There Be A Hollywood Ending To The Dramatic Story Of Clinton Vs. Obama?
by JOHN W. DEAN
Presidential Candidates vs. Hate
Why Obama And McCain Should Repudiate The Messages Of Their Extremist Religious Endorsers
by MARCI HAMILTON
|
|
|
| Real-Time SEC Edgar Filings |
| Enter all or part of the company's name or ticker symbol. You can also search for companies grouped by Standard Industrial Classification codes: |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| US Supreme Court |
|
- YEAGER v. UNITED STATES [08-67]
- WONG v. BELMONTES [08-1263]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing
In capital habeas proceedings, a circuit court's order requiring the petition to be granted is reversed where petitioner did not establish that defense counsel prejudiced petitioner by providing him ineffective assistance at the penalty phase of his trial, because petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that the jury would have rejected a capital sentence after it weighed the entire body of mitigating evidence against the entire body of aggravating evidence. - SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 v. REDDING [08-479]
|
|
| US Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit |
|
- USA v. BERGER [11/30]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Securities Law, Sentencing, White Collar Crime
Defendant's bank and securities fraud sentence is vacated where, although the Dura Pharmaceuticals loss causation standard did not apply to criminal securities fraud, the district court applied an erroneous standard of proof in determining total loss for sentencing enhancement purposes. - HERNANDEZ v. HOLDER [11/25]
Administrative Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Immigration Law
In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner from the U.S., the petition is denied where petitioner's conviction for possessing a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code section 11379(a) qualified as a basis for removability under 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). - USA v. MOHSEN [11/25]
Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence
Defendant's perjury and fraud convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly instructed the jury on the materiality element of the perjury and fraud charges; 2) there was no use of the Phase II counts or evidence in the Phase I proceedings of defendant's trial, and thus the bifurcation process was not so manifestly prejudicial as to require reversal; and 3) the district court should have consulted the parties or counsel before responding to the jury's request to see the indictment, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
*PDF Format |
|
|
|
|
|
