For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices or call 213-229-5424.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Read Today's Digital Edition
Place Your Legal Notices
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Enewsletter Sign-up
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court

Name Category Published
U.S. v. Rosacker
Sentence for drug offense that was based on unreliable police laboratory report must be recalculated. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Thiele
Claim for relief from restitution order may not be brought in 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
Bradley v. Duncan
Trial court's refusal to instruct jury on defense of entrapment violated defendant's due process rights. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Hernandez
Border agents had probable cause to arrest passenger in rear seat of vehicle containing drugs. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Colin
Driver who touches lane divider for several seconds does not create reasonable suspicion of land straddling. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Mendoza-Prado
Defendant was not entrapped into committing two drug-related offenses. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U. S. v. Vesikuru
Anticipatory search warrant was valid because it adequately incorporated supporting affidavit establishing probable cause and articulated conditions precedent to warrant's execution. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Gorman
Police who enter third party's home to execute arrest warrant must have probable cause to believe suspect is present. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
Parrish v. Small
Court must determine whether shackling of prisoner during trial was prejudicial. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Pena
Where court never explained nature of charges against defendant, plea colloquy failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Ramirez-Lopez
Government's removal of witnesses before defense counsel could interview them does not indicate bad faith or prejudice to the defendant. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Enslin
Police search of bedroom based on consent of resident with apparent authority was lawful. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Severino
Information which correctly alleged prior conviction but alleged it occurred in wrong state gave defendant sufficient notice under 21 U.S.C. Section 851. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
Harrison v. Lockyer
Prisoner who was limited to five years' worth of police records in discovery proceeding was not denied due process. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Dominguez
Defendant has burden of proving prior conviction used for later sentence was unconstitutional. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
Douglas v. Woodford
Counsel's failure to adequately investigate defendant's social history and mental health was prejudicial during penalty phase. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 21, 2003
U.S. v. Thompson
Downward departure in sentencing improperly relied upon 'heartland' conclusion. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 20, 2003
Alvarado v. Hickman
Parental involvement and juvenile status are relevant factors of 'in custody' determination. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 20, 2003
U.S. v. Ivester
Questioning of jurors at mid-trial outside presence of spectators did not violate defendant's right to public trial. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 20, 2003
U.S. v. Elliott
Police officers did not intentionally or recklessly omit or make false statements in search warrant affidavit. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 18, 2003
U.S. v. Nostratis
Defendant claiming he did not understand English may not withdraw his guilty plea. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 18, 2003
U.S. v. Gregory
Despite government's negligent delay in bringing superseding indictment, defendant failed to show prejudice attributable to delay. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 18, 2003
People v. Barnum
Trial conducted in prison doesn't establish trial was unfair and court need not advise self-represented defendant of right not to testify. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 17, 2003
Clay v. United States
One-year limitation period under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 starts when time expires for filing petition for certiorari contesting appellate court's decision. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe
Law requiring registration of convicted sexual offenders does not violate procedural due process. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
Ewing v. California
Sentence resulting from Three Strikes Law is not grossly disproportionate and does not violate Eighth Amendment. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
Lockyer v. Andrade
Appellate court did not unreasonably apply clearly established law by affirming defendant's sentence under California's Three Strikes Law for petty theft conviction. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
Smith v. Doe
Because Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate prohibition of ex post facto laws. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
U.S. v. Crawford
Parole search conducted solely to elicit information about prior crime was unconstitutional. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 11, 2003
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women Inc.
Anti-abortion groups did not commit extortion under Hobbs Act. 		Criminal Law and Procedure Mar. 10, 2003
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.