by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of Wyoming ­reversed Myron Martize Woods’ conviction for interference with a peace officer because the arresting officers’ warrantless entry into his home, without any applicable exception, meant that they were acting unlawfully in effectuating his arrest, but an “elemental” requirement of this offense is that the police were lawfully performing their official duties. 

On February 13, 2020, Cheyenne Police Department Officer Warren was called to the home of Brittany Jackson for a domestic disturbance. Jackson claimed that Woods grabbed her neck and pushed her. Warren did not see any marks on Jackson’s neck, so he concluded that there was not probable cause to arrest Woods.

Approximately two hours later, Warrant and his supervisor, Sergeant Young, returned to Jackson’s home in response to her request for further investigation. This time, the officers observed marks on her neck and determined that there was probable cause to arrest Woods for misdemeanor domestic battery. Mistakenly believing that an arrest warrant was not required under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-20-102(a) because the alleged offense occurred less than 24 hours ago, the officers did not attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for Woods.

Warren, Young, and a third officer arrived ...

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a conviction that is reversed based on a judicial determination that the Venue Clause and the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment were violated due to a trial held in an improper venue does not adjudicate the defendant’s culpability, and thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not triggered and does not prohibit retrying the defendant in the proper venue.

Timothy Smith is a software engineer and fishing enthusiast from Mobile, Alabama. In 2018, he came across a company called StrikeLines that utilizes sonar equipment to locate private, artificial reefs that people build to attract fish. The company sells the geographic coordinates of the reefs to interested fishing enthusiasts.

Smith apparently objected to this business model because StrikeLines was profiting, unfairly in his opinion, from the work of private reef builders. He used an application to secretly obtain portions of the company’s reef coordinate data and offered it to others online. StrikeLines eventually contacted him, and Smith offered to remove the online data as well as fix the company’s security flaws in exchange for coordinates to “deep grouper spots” that he was unable to ...

by Richard Resch

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s prohibition on concurrent sentences does not extend to sentences imposed under a different subsection of the statute, viz., § 924(j), and thus, when multiple convictions – including a § 924(j) conviction – are involved, sentencing courts are free to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively.

In 2002, a group engaged in drug-dealing murdered a rival dealer. Efrain Lora was accused of serving as a lookout during the shooting. He was convicted of aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1), which criminalizes the actions of a “person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm,” where the death is the result of murder. Lora was also convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.

During sentencing, Lora argued that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York had discretion to run his § 924(j) concurrently with his conspiracy sentence, but the District Court ruled that it did not have the discretion to run the sentences concurrently. ...

by Richard Resch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a postconviction relief (“PCR”) application in Arizona is “pending as long as a state avenue of relief remains open, whether or not a petitioner takes advantage of it” and thus tolls the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA”) one-year statute of limitations period – 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) – for filing a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In 2013, Paul Melville was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and four counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to an 18-year prison term. His convictions were affirmed on direct review by the Arizona Court of Appeals on July 29, 2014. The Court summarized the key dates as follows:

July 29, 2014 - Conviction affirmed by Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal

September 26, 2014 - PCR petition signed by Melville and delivered to prison officials for mailing to Maricopa County Superior Court

September 29, 2014 - Expiration of extension of time to petition the Arizona Supreme Court for review of affirmance by Arizona Court of Appeals on direct review of conviction (no such petition was filed)

October 1, 2014 ...

by Richard Resch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that because petitioner’s Illinois postconviction relief petition had been pending in state court for over 20 years, state postconviction remedies proved “ineffective,” entitling him to seek federal habeas relief under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) without first waiting for further relief in Illinois courts.

In 1999, two separate juries convicted James Evans of murder and soliciting murder. He received sentences of 60 years for the former and 47 years for the latter to run consecutively. The convictions were both affirmed on direct appeal. In 2003, Evans filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court, claiming that he was innocent and that the prosecution engaged in serious misconduct during both prosecutions.

After nearly 20 years, the state courts still have not resolved Evans’ petition for postconviction relief due, in large part, to the conduct of the State. For example, in December 2008, Evans requested copies of audio recordings that he claims were manipulated by the prosecution; the court ordered the State to “provide all copies” of the recordings to Evan. But it failed to comply and would continue to do so for the next two-and-a-half ...

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal liability for true threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment, requires proof that the defendant had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statements and further held that a mental state of recklessness is sufficient because it provides enough breathing space for protected speech without sacrificing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws prohibiting true threats.

Billy Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to a local singer and musician, C.W., over a two-year period despite the fact they had never met. C.W. did not respond to any of Counterman’s messages and blocked him numerous times, but he created new Facebook accounts and resumed sending her unwanted messages. The messages ranged from the mundane – “I am going to the store would you like anything?” – to the unsettling – “Fuck off permanently” and “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you.”

The barrage of messages affected C.W.’s daily existence. Believing that Counterman was threatening her life, she had “a lot of trouble sleeping” and suffered from severe anxiety. Consequently, she no longer walked alone, reduced her social activity, and canceled some ...

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) held that the “right-to-control” theory of liability, which imposes liability for depriving the victim of “potentially valuable economic information … necessary to make discretionary economic decisions,” is not a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statutes ...

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a trial court’s jury instructions on the standard as to whether a private citizen owes a fiduciary duty to the public and a breach thereof may serve as the basis for a conviction for honest-services fraud were too ...

by Richard Resch

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that police violated a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search of his jacket that he tossed over the fence at his mother’s home as police were initiating contact because he did not “abandon” his ...

by Richard Resch

The Supreme Court of the United States held that when a prisoner’s request for postconviction DNA testing of evidence in accordance with the process established by the state is denied and the prisoner files a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process claim challenging the constitutionality of ...