Latest 4 Cases: Rhodes v. Smith (Civil Rights), United States v. Hoeffener (Criminal Law), United States v. Jawher (Criminal Law)

How to Spot a Nation in Freefall

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies points out that when a nation doesn’t have the money to fix its roads but does give money away to help the rich get richer, that is a sign of a nation in collapse. Margulies describes the shift to neoliberal thinking under Nixon that has produced record levels of economic inequality and explains why the Trump administration’s proposed economic policies would benefit only the rich.

Read More

Rhodes v. Smith

Docket: 18-3581

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a third successive federal habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's state law murder conviction. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition because he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence it was more likely than not that no reasonable jury would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Because petitioner failed to make out a colorable claim under 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2)(B), he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

United States v. Hoeffener

Docket: 19-1192

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Erickson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for one count of receipt of child pornography and two counts of possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to compel discovery requiring the government to produce the source code, manuals, and software for Torrential Downpour. In this case, defendant's mere speculation that the software program could possibly access non-public areas of his computer or that there was a possibility that it malfunctioned during the officers' investigation into defendant's sharing of child pornography was insufficient to meet the requisite threshold showing of materiality to his defense. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence that officers obtained while using the program where a defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in files made available to the public through peer-to-peer file-sharing networks; the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying defendant's request for a Franks hearing; and defendant's motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements was properly denied. Finally, the court held that defendant's disagreement with the weight the district court gave to his age and sex offender treatment history was insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness of his sentence.

United States v. Jawher

Docket: 19-1276

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Melloy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm while being an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States. The court held that, based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the district court plainly erred by accepting defendant's guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, because the district court failed to advise defendant that the government would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that he knew that he was illegally present in the United States, or to examine the record to determine whether there was a factual basis for finding such knowledge. Furthermore, the error affected defendant's substantial rights where, but for the error, he would not have pleaded guilty. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's plea and remanded for further proceedings.

United States v. Timmons

Docket: 19-1972

Opinion Date: February 24, 2020

Judge: Kobes

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's revocation of defendant's supervise release, holding that the district court denied him the right to confront the key witness against him at his revocation hearing. The court held that the government failed to provide a reasonably satisfactory explanation for not producing the witness and failed to show that the witness's recorded police statement was inherently reliable. Finally, denying defendant the opportunity to confront the witness was not harmless. The court declined to remand to the district court for a new hearing without providing the government the opportunity to expand the record and bring in live testimony from the witness.