FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/20] Metrish v. Lancaster
Defendant is not entitled to federal habeas relief, where: 1) after defendant's first trial but prior to his retrial, the Michigan Supreme Court 2001 decision in Carpenter, held that the diminished-capacity defense was not encompassed within the Michigan Legislature's comprehensive scheme for mental-illness defenses and thus could not be invoked by criminal defendants; 2) in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the history of Michigan's diminished-capacity defense, the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision applying Carpenter retroactively at defendant's retrial is not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and thus, 3) defendant's due process rights were not violated.

[05/17] Olivas-Motta v. Holder
Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude based on information in police reports, is granted, where: 1) a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is a generic crime whose description is complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" is an element of the crime and an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA are limited to the record of conviction to determine whether an alien was convicted of a CIMT; 2) the Attorney General wrongly decided, in Matter of Silva-Trevino, which held otherwise; and 3) the IJ and the BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

[05/17] US v. Greig
Sentence of eight years imposed on defendant, for various crimes she committed while on the run with fugitive, James "Whitey" Bulger, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that defendant's conduct was not limited to harboring Bulger and refusing to cap her offense level accordingly; 2) there was no error in applying the firearm or obstruction of justice enhancement; and 3) the judge's decision to let the family members of Bulger's victims speak was not an abuse of his wide discretion.

[05/17] US v. Wurie
Defendant's conviction on drug charges is vacated, the denial of his motion to suppress is reversed, and the case is remanded, where: 1) the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not authorize the warrantless search of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee's person; and 2) the government has not argued that the search here was justified by exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement.

Read More

Securities Law

[05/14] SEC v. Bankosky
The district court's post-judgment order barring defendant from serving as an officer or director of a public company for ten years, pursuant to section 21(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act, is affirmed, where the district court: 1) did not err in relying on the six Patel factors in this case; and 2) reasonably determined that a ten-year ban was warranted.

[05/08] Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Company
In suit arising out of plaintiffs' purchase of nonrecourse notes issued by the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (PRCTF), against trustee and indenture trustee of the securities that the PRCTF purchased with the Note proceeds, alleging that plaintiffs were deceived into believing that the notes were backed by the government of Puerto Rico, the district court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, where: 1) plaintiff's complaint failed to make out a claim cognizable under federal subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint asserting a new theory of liability.

[04/22] Calderon-Serra v. Wilimington Trust Company
In suit arising out of plaintiffs' purchase of nonrecourse notes issued by the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust Fund (PRCTF), against trustee and indenture trustee of the securities that the PRCTF purchased with the Note proceeds, alleging that plaintiffs were deceived into believing that the notes were backed by the government of Puerto Rico, the district court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss, where: 1) the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 does not provide jurisdiction; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint.

[04/19] AIG v. Bank of America
District court's order denying plaintiff's motion to remand its suit alleging defendants engaged in fraudulent misrepresentations in underwriting certain residential mortgage backed securities, to the state courts is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the Edge Act, which grants federal jurisdiction to certain civil suits involving offshore banking operations, does not apply; and thus, 2) the suit accordingly must be remanded to state court.

Read More