Latest 2 Cases: United States v. Bartunek (Criminal Law), Rodriguez Fuentes v. Barr (Immigration Law)

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

United States v. Bartunek

Docket: 19-1584

Opinion Date: August 12, 2020

Judge: Steven M. Colloton

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for distribution of child pornography and possession of a visual depiction involving a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The court held that photographs of four life-sized dolls found in defendant's bedroom were properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) where the dolls were relevant to overcome the defense by showing defendant's motive for acquiring and distributing child pornography. The court also held that admission of testimony from a witness about viewing child pornography with defendant was admissible under Rule 414, because twenty-year-old evidence of child molestation can be probative and admissible where, as here, it is similar to the charged offense. In light of the extensive evidence of child pornography seized from defendant's residence, other evidence about his sexual interest in minors and history of viewing child pornography, and the minimal likely impact of the traffic cone with the word "chimo" on it (short for child molester) when viewed in context of the entire trial, the court held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial.

Rodriguez Fuentes v. Barr

Docket: 19-1773

Opinion Date: August 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that she was persecuted because of her family membership. The court held that petitioner's financial resources, rather than her family membership, was the central reason for the persecution; the Board did not err in concluding that petitioner's first group -- membership in the Fuentes family -- is not cognizable; petitioner failed to prove past persecution on account of her membership in two other particular social groups -- Salvadoran female heads of households and vulnerable Salvadorean females; and, having failed to establish past persecution, petitioner is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, petitioner cannot meet the higher standard of proof for withholding of removal.