Opinions - 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
US v. Arenburg, No. 08-5090
Defendant's conviction for assaulting a federal official is remanded where the district court erred by failing to revisit the issue of defendant's competence to stand trial based on defendant's behavior in the courtroom.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 10, 2010
Cameron v. N.Y., No. 08-5937
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, March 08, 2010
US v. Navas, No. 09-1144
In a drug conspiracy prosecution, the district court's order, suppressing narcotics seized by law enforcement officers during a warrantless search of a trailer, is reversed where the search was lawful under the "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, January 07, 2010
US v. Reeves, No. 08-2966
Defendant's child pornography conviction is vacated where a condition of defendant's supervised release that obligated him, upon entry into a "significant romantic relationship," to notify the United States Probation Department and to inform the other party to the relationship of his conviction, was unconstitutionally vague and not reasonably related to the goals of sentencing.
US v. Labbe, No. 08-0673
Defendant's sentence for interstate transportation of stolen property is vacated where the district court failed to make findings in support of its denial of a minimal role adjustment.
US v. Garcia, No. 08-1621
Defendant's money laundering conspiracy guilty plea is vacated and remanded where the record lacked a sufficient factual basis to conclude that defendant participated in the alleged conspiracy with the requisite knowledge of the concealment element of the crime charged.
US v. Williams, No. 08-5151
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is vacated where the district court erred by admitting evidence that defendant had been in an apartment from which weapons and drugs were later recovered.
US v. Bell, No. 08-5506
In the government's appeal from the district court's order granting a new trial in an attempted murder prosecution, the order is reversed where the district court erred in ordering a new trial because: 1) the district court's jury instructions on intentional conduct were legally correct and did not constitute plain error warranting a new trial; 2) the district court's use of a general verdict form was not plain error and thus not a basis for ordering a new trial; 3) the district court rested its decision to grant a new trial on clearly erroneous factual findings; and 4) the district court failed to evaluate the entire trial record in ruling on defendant's motion for a new trial.
US v. Shim, No. 08-1834
Defendant's conviction for conspiring to transport women in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of prostitution is reversed where the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant had to know that the women were transported in interstate commerce to be guilty of the offense.
Jova v. Smith, No. 08-2816
In an action by prisoners claiming that defendant prison personnel infringed their right to practice their religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the restrictions imposed on plaintiffs' practice were justified by powerful security and administrative interests, but reversed in part where defendants did not demonstrate that the religious/meatless alternative menu was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling administrative interests.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 22, 2009
Caiozzo v. Koreman, No. 05-4002
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the standard for analyzing a claim of deliberate indifference to the health or safety of a convicted prison inmate held in state custody as a violation of the right of the inmate to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment is also applicable to claims brought by pretrial state detainees under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and there was no evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could conclude in the affirmative.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 21, 2009
Hernandez v. Coffey, No. 06-4246
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner alleging that he was beaten by defendant corrections officers and denied medical treatment by defendant nurse, dismissal of the action is vacated where the district court erred in converting defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to a motion for summary judgment and dismissing his case without first explaining the procedural requirements for responding to such a motion and the potential consequences of the motion, and without providing him an opportunity to take discovery and to submit evidence to respond to the motion.