Recently in Criminal Law Category

Here at FindLaw, we understand the pressures of being a legal professional - most of us are recovering lawyers - so we want to help by tossing you that preferred life preserver of the legal profession, the short list.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals released two opinions this week regarding the civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. In one case, US v. Hall, the circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing civil commitment charges, while in the other case, US v. Timms, the court remanded the issue back to the district court to decide if the respondent met the criteria for a sexually dangerous person.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has its limits, particularly with regard to a person under a domestic violence order.

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal law that prohibits the subject of a domestic violence order from owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition. In the case, the defendant who challenged the law was bound by a domestic violence order stemming from a gun-related incident.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seems hung up on the "reasonable" aspect of "unreasonable search and seizure."

Case in point: Last week, the Fourth Circuit ruled that it is unreasonable to cut a bag of drugs off of a suspect's penis with a knife at night, and suppressed the evidence under the exclusionary rule.

When you finish cringing at the thought of this scenario, we'll move on to the facts.

The law is all about specificity. Sometimes, the legal profession's undying devotion to specifics means that an accused person can escape criminal prosecution. Other times, as in today's Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case, the specifics simply delay the inevitable.

This week, the Fourth Circuit ordered resentencing in a drug conviction in U.S. v. Bell because the district court failed to properly explain its methodology for calculating a drug quantity and make findings sufficient to permit appellate review of the sentence for procedural reasonableness.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that the U.S. v. Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule permits a court to look beyond the facts stated in a search warrant affidavit and consider uncontroverted facts the police inadvertently failed to disclose to the magistrate.

Montgomery County police began investigating 18-year-old Collin McKenzie-Gude for firearms and explosives violations after his friend’s aunt informed police that McKenzie-Gude had an assault rifle and dangerous chemicals, and constantly discussed explosives. Police eventually obtained a search warrant for McKenzie-Gude’s home, the “Rockhurst Road residence,” where they found weapons, gun parts, bullet-proof vests, ammunition, and materials that could be used to make explosives.

Pop quiz: Which of the following qualifies as a physical restraint during a bank robbery?

(A) Rope (B) Duct tape (C) Gun (D) All of the above.

According to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is D.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney's stock fraud conviction on Tuesday, rejecting arguments that evidence was improperly admitted during the trial.

The attorney, Phillip Offill, Jr., is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed convicted-murderer Dustin John Higgs's conviction and federal death sentence last week, finding that Higgs's rights to due process of law were not violated by the withholding of Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence at his trial.

Higgs was convicted of killing three women in the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge near Washington, D.C. after an unsuccessful set-up date. The government presented overwhelming evidence of Higgs's guilt, as well as of his predominant role in the murders, at trial.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Edward Lee Elmore's 29-year-old murder conviction on Tuesday.

The court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that Elmore was entitled to habeas corpus relief on his Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective counsel because his trial lawyers blindly accepted the State's forensic evidence. The court described the situation as "one of those exceptional cases of 'extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems' where habeas relief was appropriate to remedy injustice.

Can Virginia police forcibly remove your client from his home without a warrant for driving under the influence?

Supreme Court precedent says no. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently said yes. The Fourth Circuit suggested that its holding is distinguished from Supreme Court precedent due to Virginia DUI penalties.