9th Circuit Criminal Law News - U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Criminal Law Category

Here's another interesting death penalty ruling out of the West Coast.

The Ninth Circuit just did what a number of other courts have refused to do: forced a state to turn over information on the source of execution drugs and the credentials of the executioners, while granting a stay of execution in the interim.

In dissent, Judge Jay Bybee calls the inmate's First Amendment right of access claim "novel" and argues that the right of access dispute, which would apply to all citizens and not just to the inmate, does not justify delaying an execution more than two decades in the making.

In 2010, Los Angeles officials gathered for a "Town Hall on Homelessness," a forum where Venice residents complained about the prevalence of homeless individuals sleeping in their cars. City officials and high-ranking LAPD officers attended, assured residents that they would reemphasize enforcement of an existing ordinance prohibiting living in one's car.

How? They formed a task force of twenty-one officers that were to use Section 85.02 to cite and arrest homeless people who were in violation of the statute. As part of this enforcement, officers ticketed or arrested a man waiting to volunteer at his church, a woman driving her RV through Venice, and a guy waiting out a rainstorm in his car, amongst others. None were caught sleeping in their vehicles, and some of them even had proof that they slept elsewhere, such as a local shelter.

Want to spend more time practicing, and less time advertising? Leave the marketing to the experts.

Arizona: the proving ground for state immigration and abortion laws.

We've seen a lot of movement on Arizona abortion cases lately, and on Monday, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in an ongoing challenge to the state's illegal immigrant harboring statute, which means the injunction, which currently blocks enforcement of the state law, will remain in place during the litigation.

An en banc challenge to a related law, which prohibits bail for illegal immigrants, was recently argued before the court and is awaiting a decision.

This is a disappointing, yet utterly unsurprising result, after a years-long appeals process that was put on hold pending last year's equally unfortunate Maryland v. King decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last year, the High Court held that Maryland's practice of collecting DNA from felons was pretty much no big deal, akin to fingerprinting as a means of identification. Haskell v. Harris is a similar case, challenging a somewhat similar law in California.

So yes, after a pro-California ruling by a panel, some indication that the en banc court was leaning the other way, and the Supreme Court bombshell, California's law stands, and the injunction that would've stopped all DNA collection has been denied.

Over the past few years, the nation has watched, with little amusement, while a circus of immigration reform efforts have played out in Arizona. Frustrated by what they call the federal government's failings in curbing illegal immigration, the state passed its own set of laws, in the legislature and via referendum, most of which have since met their demise in the courts.

Arizona's laws have been criticized as improperly motivated, and preempted by federal law, but last June, a divided panel upheld Proposition 100, which denies bond to illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes, as a proper means of ensuring that the state can enforce its laws against those prone to flee.

On Thursday, however, the court announced that the case will head back to the court for the full en banc treatment.

She spent more than two decades on death row before the Ninth Circuit set her free because of questions about the investigating detective's credibility. Now, thanks to those questions, the case against her is unraveling.

Deborah Milke was convicted in 1991 of having her 4-year-old son murdered. But decades later, Milke was set free after the Ninth Circuit granted habeas, citing multiple findings by lower courts of Detective Hector Saldate's misconduct in other cases.

Now, after the trial court today allowed Saldate to invoke his right against self-incrimination, the prosecution is scrambling to gather enough evidence to retry the case, 20 years later.

Dissents are worthless, right? After all, they're not controlling, especially dissents from orders.

This dissent from an en banc rehearing denial, by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, arguing that the frequency of Brady disclosure violations has reached epidemic proportions, is one more reason why Judge Kozinski is quickly becoming a personal favorite. It's snarky, well-written, and makes you wonder how in the heck the original panel (and the en banc deniers) got the case so wrong.

Unfortunately, it's legal effect is nill, which means the defendant, Kenneth Olsen, who was convicted of knowingly developing a biological agent (ricin) for use as a weapon (allegedly laced allergy pills), will not receive relief, absent Supreme Court intervention.

Fiending for a live stream of oral arguments in landmark cases? As we reported last week, the Ninth Circuit is going to lead the way in transparency by becoming the first Circuit Court of Appeals to stream its en banc proceedings live, online, at the court's website.

What cases are set for arguments? DNA collection, criminal matters, immigration, and a police shooting are all on the docket.

Pedro Vega was convicted in 2002 of molesting his stepdaughter. Prior to that conviction, he had escaped criminal charges twice: A federal case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, and state charges were dismissed as well. After new allegations by the victim came to light, the state brought charges again. Even then, there were two mistrials, including one caused by his attorney's absence, before he was finally convicted.

Three sets of charges. Three attorneys. And three trials, all of which were handled by the same attorney, who apparently never read the full case file, as he didn't discover the victim's second recantation, to her priest, until after that third trial.

Ineffective assistance, perhaps?

The California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act is a comprehensive piece of anti-gang legislation that, amongst other remedies, allows the state to ask for an injunction prohibiting gang gatherings and other related behaviors.

In 2009, the Orange County District Attorney filed for an injunction against alleged members of the Orange Varrio Cypress (OVC) street gang. The terms of the injunction, which covers a 3.78-square mile area in the City of Orange, prohibited the affected members from gathering, throwing up gang signs, and being out after 10 p.m.

But when more than 50 of the alleged 115 people listed on the injunction showed up to challenge it, the prosecutors dismissed the injunction against the objectors -- then had it enforced against the group as a whole, including those who had previously objected.