by Matt Clarke
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that consent to testing and analysis is required for the results of a blood alcohol test to be admissible in an operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (“OUI”) prosecution even when there was a court order for ...
by Matt Clarke
The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a criminal defendant had the right to be informed of an in-chambers hearing on the fitness and ability of his attorney to try the case and to have conflict-free counsel attend the hearing and represent his interests.
Terrence Downs was ...
by Matt Clarke
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal of a count in a federal indictment alleging conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 as it ...
by Matt Clarke
The Supreme Court of Michigan held that a showup identification of the alleged shooter in a murder case was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable. Because the prosecution’s case was “significantly less persuasive” without the identification, it was not harmless. Therefore, the Court reversed the murder conviction and remanded ...
by Matt Clarke
On July 20, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a prior state drug conviction under a statute that defined the drug more broadly than the equivalent federal statute could be used to enhance a federal drug crime sentence as a career offender under U.S.S.G. §§ 4Bl.l(a) and 4B1.2(b) but could not be used as a prior drug crime to enhance the sentence under 21 U.S.C. §§ 84l(b)(l)(C) and 851. It vacated the sentence and remanded the case.
An Illinois police task force found Nathaniel Ruth in possession of cocaine and a gun. He was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l), and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(l), (b)(l)(C). The Government notified Ruth that it would be using a 2006 Illinois conviction for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to distribute, in violation of 720 ILCS 570/40l(c)(2), to enhance his maximum sentence from 20 to 30 years under 21 U.S.C. § 84l(b)(l)(C). Ruth did not object.
The probation office used the same 2006 state drug conviction, along with another prior conviction, to ...
by Matt Clarke
The en banc Supreme Court of Colorado held that the successful completion of a deferred judgment for a sex offense, which resulted in the dismissal of that charge, does not count as a conviction for purposes of the bar to petitioning a court to discontinue requiring sex offender registration for a person who “is convicted” of more than one sex offense set forth in § 16-22-113(3)(c), C.R.S. (2019), of the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act.
As part of a plea agreement, Brian Keith McCulley pleaded guilty to one count each of second-degree sexual assault in violation of 18-3-403(l)(a), C.R.S. (2000), a fourth-degree felony, and third-degree sexual assault in violation of 18-3-404(l)(c), C.R.S. (2000), a class 1 misdemeanor.
He was sentenced to a four-year deferred judgment for the felony and received a 60-day jail sentence plus two years of probation for the misdemeanor. The probation required him to comply with the terms of the deferred judgment, and one of those terms was that he register as a sex offender.
McCulley successfully completed the terms of the felony deferred judgment, and the court ordered his guilty plea withdrawn and dismissed the felony charge.
Thus, the ...
by Matt Clarke
On August 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that a change in the guidelines of the American Board of Forensic Odontology (“ABFO”) prohibiting testimony that bite mark comparison could be used to identify an individual constituted new evidence that could be used in postconviction proceedings to challenge a conviction based largely on such evidence. The Court vacated the murder conviction and death sentence and remanded the case for a new trial.
On February 2, 1992, smoke from a small, smoldering fire led to the discovery of the body of Georgia Kemp, 84, in her house. An autopsy determined that she had been beaten, raped, strangled, and stabbed; however, no bite marks were found on her body, which was subsequently buried.
Three days later, the doctor who performed the autopsy requested an additional study of Kemp’s body, which was exhumed and examined under ultraviolet light by Dr. Michael West, a forensic odontologist. He discovered otherwise invisible marks on the right breast, right side of the neck, and right arm. He used dental impressions of Eddie Lee Howard, Jr.’s teeth to perform a “wound duplication test with ink” and determined that the mark on the right breast ...
by Matt Clarke
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.3(b)(l)’s “a court shall adjust the sentence” for time served on a related state crime is mandatory once the section’s requirements are met. Acknowledging a circuit split on the issue, it ruled that a § 5Gl.3(b)(l) adjustment does not change the sentencing range and thus is not “advisory” pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Christopher Henry pleaded guilty in Alabama state court to stealing eight firearms during a business burglary. Because of his prior convictions – one for assault and 10 for burglary – he was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Two years later, Henry pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm – based on his theft of the firearms. His presentencing investigation report showed a Guidelines range of 130 to 162 months but was reduced to the statutory maximum for his crime, 120 months. The court sentenced him to 108 months.
Henry requested a downward adjustment of his sentence for the 24 months he had already served on the state burglary conviction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.3(b)(l). Citing his lengthy criminal ...
by Matt Clarke
The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that a probation officer who found heroin during a compliance check after the probation had ended and then been unlawfully extended conducted an unauthorized warrantless search.
John D. Vandenpool was sentenced to two years of probation on June 24, 2013. On September 23, 2015, his probation officer petitioned the court to extend his probation until June 25, 2016, because he had been on “warrant status” during part of the probation and had not paid all of his fines and fees. The extension was granted.
On November 12, 2015, the probation officer applied for a warrant for Vanderpool because he had failed a drug screening. On December 3, 2015, he applied for another warrant because Vanderpool failed to show up for his weekly appointment at the probation office. The next day, the probation officer conducted a “compliance check” of Vanderpool’s home and found a small amount of heroin, which Vanderpool admitted was his. This led to Vanderpool’s prosecution for possession of under 25 grams of heroin.
Vanderpool filed a motion to suppress the heroin, which was denied. Vanderpool pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 18 months to eight years for possession ...
by Matt Clarke
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, held on June 16, 2020, that the California Supreme Court’s decision limiting the kill zone theory in prosecutions for attempted premeditated murder applies retroactively. The court reversed 11 convictions each for two habeas petitioners.
Juan Marshall Rayford and ...
