Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Criminal Law Category

Brendan Dassey was just 16 when he was railroaded into confessing involvement in the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. Those who watched his interrogation in "Making a Murderer" saw all the hallmarks of an impressionable and possibly mentally impaired teen harangued by officers until he gave them a nonsensical confession, all without a parent or attorney present.

Now 27, Dassey has been ordered to be released from prison after a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that Dassey's confession had been coerced, calling it "death by a thousand cuts." But that release may not happen right away.

The case against Minnesota officer Jeronimo Yanez for the murder of Philando Castile has finally come to a close. To the surprise of anyone who viewed the Facebook Live video of the aftermath, uploaded by Mr. Castile's fiancee, the jury actually found Yanez not guilty.

Though there is no doubt that Yanez pulled the trigger and killed Philando Castile, this decision, which took five days of deliberations by the jury, goes a long way toward vindicating Officer Yanez of criminal wrongdoing. Despite being cleared of the criminal charges, Yanez and his department can still face a civil wrongful death lawsuit brought by Mr. Castile's next of kin.

Most Americans hadn't heard of civil forfeiture before John Oliver did a deep dive on the practice two years ago. And it seems like his critique and others like it have gotten not just the attention of citizens, but of judges as well. After the rampant expansion of law enforcement entities seizing assets in criminal cases, largely with judicial support, the Supreme Court looks like it may be finally reigning in the practice.

A unanimous Court ruled that the federal government overstepped its bounds by seizing personal property it could not prove had actually been "tainted" by criminal activity.

Convicted mass murderer Dylan Roof had his motion for new attorneys granted last week ahead of his expected appeal. Roof was sentenced to death this past January. Since motions for a new trial have been unsuccessful, it is expected that Roof will file an appeal.

It is no secret that Roof was not happy with his attorneys. In fact, reports have surfaced claiming that Roof believed his attorneys are evil. During the sentencing phase of his federal trial, after a jury returned a conviction, Roof chose to represent himself, against the advice of his attorneys and the court. However, now that the conviction and sentence have been issued, and there are no more motions to be made at the trial level, Roof must proceed with an appeal if he plans to continue fighting the conviction.

The Ohio Supreme Court reached a rather controversial decision on Thursday about the Fourth Amendment rights of students on public school grounds. The state's highest court reversed the two lower courts' decisions suppressing the evidence that was discovered during three warrantless searches of a student's backpacks.

In short, the Ohio Supreme Court found that schools may conduct warrantless searches of unattended backpacks to identify who the bag belongs to, and ensure the bag does not contain dangerous items or pose a threat to student safety.

Up until last week, Colorado had a law in place allowing the state to keep fees and restitution paid by criminal defendants, even after their convictions were overturned. That was until the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority in a 7-1 decision, held "Colorado may not presume a person, adjudged guilty of no crime, nonetheless guilty enough for monetary exactions." And these monetary exactions were not insignificant. The two plaintiffs in the case had paid $12,500 between them in court costs, fees, and restitution, and Colorado attorneys say they've been contacted by exonerated defendants who've paid over $20,000, only to have their convictions vacated. Here's a look at the Court's ruling.

A few years ago, Ethan Couch was made infamous as a result of the defense his lawyers pleaded in an effort to get him off on four counts of DWI manslaughter. Couch is the notorious "affluenza teen." This week he is again making headlines as the Texas Supreme Court denied his appeal.

Unlike influenza, affluenza is a rather different ailment, if it can even be considered such at all. Couch's medical expert testified that the teen was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions (of killing four people while driving drunk) due to his affluent upbringing. As if claiming an affluent upbringing as a defense wasn't shocking enough, until he fled the country in 2015, he wasn't even sentenced to a single day behind bars.

A federal district court judge in Arizona has ruled that the state's relatively new no-intent-required child molestation law is unconstitutional.

Although the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a man convicted under that new law, the federal district court in Arizona reversed the state's supreme court's upholding of the law.

Under federal rules of procedure, there is what's known as the "no-impeachment rule" which prohibits jurors from undermining or discrediting their verdicts. The rule is designed to provide finality to jury verdicts as well as promote "full and vigorous discussion" by jurors without fear that they will be harassed after being discharged or summoned to recount their deliberations.

Jury deliberations are essentially a "black box" in that they are free from judicial review in almost all cases. But the Supreme Court added one more exception to that rule, permitting judges to consider evidence of a juror's racial statements and whether they violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a trial "by an impartial jury."

A decision by the highest state court in Colorado may have far reaching implications for states that have legalized recreational and medical marijuana.

The big pot-law decision they reached last week has sparked national debate over whether law enforcement must return marijuana seized in criminal investigations. Basically, despite Colorado state law requiring law enforcement to return marijuana seized for a criminal prosecution if the prosecution fails, the court found that officers are not required to return marijuana as it would violate federal drug laws.