Tuesday, May 29, 2007

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, HABEAS CORPUS

Howard v. US Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-3315
In an inmate's pro se habeas corpus proceedings claiming that, during two disciplinary proceedings against him for assaulting another prisoner and possessing drug paraphernalia, federal penitentiary officials violated his due process rights, dismissal of the habeas petition is affirmed in part, but vacated in part where petitioner was denied the opportunity to present potentially exculpatory evidence at one of his hearings

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

dna

In McKithen v. Brown, Judge Calabresi opens his decision as follows:"Eighty-four years ago, Judge Learned Hand observed that '[o]ur procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,' but posited, optimistically, that '[i]t is an unreal dream.' United States v. Garrison, 291 F. 646, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1923). Today, with the advance of forensic DNA technology, our desire to join Learned Hand's optimism has given way to the reality of wrongful convictions -- a reality which challenges us to reaffirm our commitment to the principle that the innocent should be freed."The case involves an attempt by a prisoner to a post-conviction constitutional right to access to DNA testing, which, he asserts, might exonerate him. The District Court dismissed the action, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, but the Second Circuit reversed.The decision can be found here.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court, for it to consider whether there exists a constitutional right on the basis of which Plaintiff-Appellant might be able to obtain the relief he requests, and if there is such a right, whether, once the district court defines the contours of that right, Plaintiff- Appellant’s claim is collaterally-estopped by the earlier state court decisions.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

George martorano

McKeever v. Warden Sci-Graterford, No. 05-2492
Grant and stay of a habeas petition challenging a conviction for drug-related charges, which included two counts arising under the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act (PACOA), is affirmed where: 1) because the PACOA charges, which defendant was actually innocent of, were not an essential part of an agreed exchange, rescission of his plea was not necessary; and 2) thus, the district court did not err in granting the writ of habeas corpus and leaving the remedy to the commonwealth.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

habeas corpus winner

Nara v. Frank, No. 05-4779
Plain error review is appropriate where a party fails to timely object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation (R&R) in habeas corpus cases. Grant of a petition for habeas relief in a murder case is affirmed where: 1) plain error review applied; 2) petitioner properly exhausted his incompetency claim; 3) the district court correctly found that the commonwealth failed to show petitioner defaulted his claim; and 4) there was no plain error in a finding that petitioner was incompetent when he pleaded guilty to murdering his wife and mother-in-law.