U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and Special Offer for the Week of June 17-21, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending June 21, 2024 –

The Justices held their June 20, 2024, which is the last scheduled conference this term. We expect Orders on June 24, 2024 and more opinions on June 26, 2024. Here are the relevant opinions decided on June 20, 2024:
Gonzalez v. Trevino, No. 22-1025 (S. Ct. June 20, 2024)– This opinion runs less than five full pages and starts this way: In Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 402 (2019), this Court held that, as a general rule, a plaintiff bringing a retaliatory-arrest claim “must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for the arrest.” At the same time, we recognized a narrow exception to that rule. The existence of probable cause does not defeat a plaintiff ’s claim if he produces “objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” Id., at 407. We granted certiorari in this case to consider whether the Fifth Circuit properly applied these principles. It did not. We therefore vacate that court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, No. 23-50 (S. Ct. June 20, 2024)– This case involves what is often called a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must show that a government official charged him without probable cause, leading to an unreasonable seizure of his person. See Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36, 43, and n. 2 (2022). The question presented here arises when the official brings multiple charges, only one of which lacks probable cause. Do the valid charges insulate the official from a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to the invalid charge? The answer is no: The valid charges do not create a categorical bar. We leave for another day the follow-on question of how to determine in those circumstances whether the baseless charge caused the requisite seizure.

Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14 (S. Ct. June 20, 2024)-- Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibits expert witnesses from stating opinions “about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.” In this drug-trafficking prosecution, petitioner argued that she lacked the mental state required to convict because she was unaware that drugs were concealed in her car when she drove it across the United States-Mexico border. At trial, the Government’s expert witness opined that most drug couriers know that they are transporting drugs. Because the expert witness did not state an opinion about whether petitioner herself had a particular mental state, we conclude that the testimony did not violate Rule 704(b). We therefore affirm.

Here are the relelvant opinions from the Supreme Court released today:
Erlinger v. United States, (No. 23-370) (S. Ct. June 21, 2024)–The Court ruled that under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Smith v. Arizona, (No. 22-899) (S. Ct. June 21, 2024)–the Court ruled for the state that the confrontation clause does not bar an expert to present an absent analyst’s true statements in support the expert’s opinion.

United States v. Rahimi, (No. 22–915)(S. Ct. June 21, 2024)– The Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment was violated by a federal criminal law that prohibits any persons under a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of June 17-21, 2024 –

4th Circuit

United States v. Dunlap, (No. 22-4625/No. 22-4646)(4th Cir. June 18, 2024)– Vera and Trecika Dunlap (collectively, Defendants) pleaded guilty to jury tampering. In written plea agreements, entered into pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), they agreed to serve twelve months and one day of incarceration. On appeal, Vera and Trecika argue that the district court accepted the plea agreements, but then deprived them of the bargain they made with the government by imposing a higher sentence than that stipulated to in the plea agreements, while still nominally attempting to enforce the agreements’ remaining terms. The government argues that the district court rejected the plea agreements. The Court held that when a record is ambiguous as to whether the district court accepted or rejected a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, the ambiguity must be construed in the defendant’s favor. Because the Court concluded that the record here is ambiguous, and Defendants advocate for acceptance of the agreements, the Court vacated the judgement insofar as it conflicts with the terms of the plea agreements, and remanded for reentry of the judgments consistent with this opinion and the stipulated sentence set forth in the plea agreements.

7th Circuit

United States v. Van Sach, (No. 23-1367)(7th Cir. June 20, 2024)– Van Sach appealed his 87-month sentence for assaulting a correctional officer. 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b). He principally challenged the district court’s calculation of the sentencing range under the guideline provision for aggravated assault, U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, which the government conceded was applied in error. Because the application of § 2A2.2 was not harmless, the Court vacated Van Sach’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

OTHER NEWS

ALERT 2020's Special Offer of Quick Lookup of methamphetamine cases to determine whether there is disparity in sentencing is still available until July 3, 2024. If you have a meth case, please take advantage of this offer. However, we must give us where you went to court, your case number if possible and an outside contact’s name and telephone number. This should be someone interested in helping you with your case.

Latest Bureau of Prison’s Statistics (From BOP Website):

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,143 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 34,378 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,726 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,334.
Population in Home Confinement 4,956.

COMMENT:

With regard to the above Supreme Court cases, the biggest disappointment was the Rahimi case. We believed that Rahimi was not the best case to bring to the Supreme Court regarding felon in possession of a firearm. In our opinion, the best case was Range v. Garland, (No. 21-2835) (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2022). In Range, the full en banc Third Circuit found unconstitutional the application of federal felon-in-possession law to a person with a non-violent false statement conviction. This would have been a much better choice to resolve a circuit split concerning the lawfulness of a frequently-applied federal gun control provision.

We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if there was a disparity in there case regarding methamphetamine “actual” and “mixture.” Our new FREE LOOK program for methamphetamine cases ends on July 3, 2024. We have had hundreds of inquiries, and many people are qualified. This is only for methamphetamine cases and is not the same as a detailed in-depth Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) for all remedies available. Please be patient, we have a lot of people to get to.

For the last 30 years, we have been very successful. We can help on direct appeals, 2255 motions, 2241 Petitions, First Step Act and Compassionate Release Motions, Earned Time Credits, DC Superior Court Petitions, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons and other specialized motions to mention a few avenues for relief we cover. The WCE is an excellent low cost tool to see what can be done for you at any stage of the proceedings. It is thorough and detailed from day one of your case to present with our recommendations of any remedies available to gain relief.

If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case Evaluation.