The Maryland Board of Public Works has approved a $55,000 settlement with a Philadelphia man who claimed state troopers stopped him three times in two months because he is black and then pursued trumped-up charges that cost him 20 days in jail after he filed a Public Information Act request for details of the traffic stops.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s splintered ruling allowing a witness’ pre-arrest silence to be introduced at trial — its latest decision carving out more of the contours of defendants’ well-known right to remain silent — seemed at first blush to be a devastating blow to defense attorneys and their clients.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide just what elements are necessary to prove aiding and abetting liability for one of the most common federal crimes: the use or possession of a gun during a drug-related or violent offense.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to review a federal appeals court ruling striking down portions of Alabama’s immigration law, one of the most restrictive in the nation.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week that a defendant cannot be retried, even when his acquittal was based on a judge’s blunder, was cheered by defense attorneys.
But others say that the ruling dealt a blow to prosecutors — and to the rule of law — by rewarding a defendant who had a hand in the mistake.
Could a state trial court retroactively apply a ruling from its supreme court that abolished the diminished-capacity defense?
Lancaster v. Metrish, No. 12-547.Certiorari granted: Jan. 18, 2013. Ruling below: 683 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2012).
Was a state court’s retroactive application of a rule abolishing the diminished-capacity defense so unexpected that it violated a defendant’s due process rights?
A year after ruling that a woman charged under an international treaty for the allegedly poisoning of her husband’s paramour had standing to challenge the application of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the merits of the case.
WASHINGTON – In a case that raises the question of whether judges, rather than juries, can constitutionally decide factors that could trigger an increase in the minimum sentence, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed reluctant to shake up a sentencing scheme that Congress and the courts have relied upon for more than a decade.
A criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing the defense that he withdrew from a drug distribution conspiracy outside the statute of limitations.