|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
CHAIR’S MESSAGEgg
SECTION NEWS… White Collar Crime program helps lawyers defend clients in
cases involving antitrust, corruption, environmental crime, money laundering
and more. Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions looks to alternatives to detention. Nominations for
Awards: The Criminal Justice
Section is soliciting nominations for three awards. Please note the deadline for submitting nominations is
April 3, 2006. The ABA Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division is also accepting
nominations for its 2006 National Awards. Nominations must be received by April
18, 2006. FEATURED EVENTS…
(non-ABA co-sponsored events that are listed are for reference
only and do not imply
NEW PUBLICATIONS… Forthcoming in Fall 2006: The State of The revived and newly-formatted report
will cover hot issues, overall trends, relevant case law, current state and
federal statistical data and legislative activity. Each of the Section’s
substantive committee will contribute a chapter to this report. Section
members are welcome to send in relevant information for this report to crimjustice@abanet.org. Achieving Justice: Freeing the Innocent,
Convicting the Guilty The Ad Hoc Innocence Committee to Ensure the Integrity of the Criminal
Process (Co-Chairs Paul Giannelli and Myrna Raeder) has produced a 170-page
report that alerts state and federal criminal justice professionals to the policy
development in this area by the The Criminal Lawyer’s Guide to Immigration
Law: Questions and Answers, Second Edition By Robert James McWhirter Presented in a question and answer format, this concise guide focuses
on the criminal lawyer’s most common questions about immigration law and
representing noncitizens. For orders, visit www.abanet.org/abastore or call (800)285-2221. Mention
product code 5090100. NEW RESOURCES… Solutions for Safer Communities: FY 2004 Annual Report to Congress By Bureau of Justice Assistance, Describes the funding, technical assistance, and diverse resources BJA
provided in fiscal year 2004 to support jurisdictions in their efforts to
reduce and prevent crime. The report also provides real examples of
jurisdictions and organizations throughout the nation that benefited from BJA's programs and made a difference in their
communities. Georgia v. Randolph (3/22/06) Scott Randolph, while on trial for possession of cocaine, filed a
motion to suppress evidence found when the police searched his home without a
warrant. U.S. v. Grubbs (3/21/06) Jeffrey Grubbs was on trial for possessing child pornography, a
federal crime. He asked the judge to
suppress evidence officers seized from his home. Grubbs said the search violated the Fourth
Amendment because the officers showed him an "anticipatory
warrant," something valid only after trigger events take place, with no
mention of the trigger conditions. The condition set on this warrant was that
officers could search Grubbs' house when he received a pornographic video. The
judge denied Grubbs' motion because the trigger was set forth in an affidavit
that the officers carried during the search and that the warrant referenced.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and said officers had to show trigger events for
an anticipatory warrant to the person being searched. The United State Supreme Court
held that Anticipatory warrants are not categorically unconstitutional under
the Fourth Amendment's provision that “no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause.” Probable cause exists when “there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” The Court also found that the warrant at
issue did not violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. The
Amendment specifies only two matters that the warrant must “particularly
describe”: “the place to be searched” and “the persons or things to be
seized.” The particularity requirement does not include the conditions
precedent to execution of the warrant. Scheidler v. National Organization for
Women, Inc (2/28/06) In 1986, a class of women who have used or would use the services of
an abortion clinic and all such clinics filed suit against defendants, a
group of anti-abortion activists, alleging, among other things, that their
protest tactics violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and the Hobbs Act, the federal extortion statute. An initial trip
from the Seventh Circuit to the Supreme Court resulted in a remand to the
District Court for trial of the plaintiffs' RICO claims. A jury found for the
plaintiffs and awarded damages to the two named clinics, and the District
Court issued a permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting the defendants
from conducting blockades, trespassing, damaging property, or committing acts
of violence at the class clinics. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding,
among others, (1) that RICO authorizes private plaintiffs to seek injunctive
relief and (2) that interfering with intangible property, such as the right
to conduct business, violates the Hobbs Act.
The United States Supreme Court held that physical violence unrelated
to robbery or extortion falls outside the scope of the Hobbs Act. Because the Court's decision required an
entry of judgment in petitioners' favor, it did not address the other
questions presented: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals improperly disregarded
the Supreme Court's mandate in "Now II" by holding that the
injunction issued by the District Court might not need to be vacated; and (2)
Whether RICO authorizes a private party to obtain an injunction. For summaries of other criminal cases, see: U.S. Supreme Court Criminal Cases
The American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section |
|||||||||||||||||||
