Recently in Criminal Law Category

You'd have to imagine, at some point, that either Congress (ha!) or the Supreme Court will step in and clear up the confusion surrounding restitution for those depicted in child pornography, as well as the issue of joint and several liability of the present day possessors of the images. Though they've denied certiorari in Amy and Vicky cases before, the flood of circuit court confusion and circuit splintering continues.

Last September, the ABA Journal wrote an exhaustive feature on Amy and Vicky, the two victims who have had cases appear in nearly every federal Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation. In fact, they've had two opinions released regarding their restitution this week, including a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit.

Lawrence M. Stanfill El once worked with Kyle Carmin as fellow work-study interns with adjacent workspaces at the Department of Veteran Affairs in Portland, Oregon. It was a tranquil office, until one day, the two lads fell to fisticuffs. The outcome was poor for Mr. Carmin, as he was repeatedly struck by Mr. Stanfill El and required $3,468.03 in treatment at a local hospital.

Because the altercation occurred on federal property, the prosecution took place in federal, rather than Oregon, courts using federal law. Stanfill El was charged with assault within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, a petty offense with a maximum penalty of six months. Though he requested a jury, he was denied, and was convicted after a bench trial. He was also ordered to pay restitution for the hospital costs.

Stanfill El appealed his conviction, asserting his right to a jury under the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.

I just violated FindLaw's corporate computer policy. Okay, maybe I didn't. I'm not really sure. I never read it. Most people don't. That little nugget of truth was why the Nosal case was so important when it was decided last year.

David Nosal was passed up for a promotion at Korn/Ferry, a headhunting firm. He plotted to start a rival business, and along with his merry band of followers, accessed some data from the company's database. That data was allegedly used to land a contract for the new company.

A guy walks into a bar … I mean, walks to the border. Seeking to enter the country, he says, “S’up. I’m a United States Citizen.” He is then admitted into the country … in handcuffs.

There were two problems with Mariano Anguiano-Morfin’s assertion. For one, he had previously been removed from the country, and had his lawful residence revoked. The other issue? Falsely claiming that you are a U.S. Citizen is a crime.

His creative defense was delusions of citizenship.

Thirteen years ago, Erris Edgerly was standing alone in a playground located in a housing project in San Francisco. It turns out, intentionally or not, that he may have been trespassing. He was not a resident of the housing project and was standing in a fenced-in area with "No Trespassing" signs displayed frequently and prominently.

What happens when one commits the offense of trespassing? For a first-timer, it is a mere infraction - which should mean "ticket and release." Instead, he was taken to the police station, searched, and when no contraband was found, he was finally released with a ticket.

Then, he sued.

Here's what we know about the Hamid Hayat case. Hayat isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. As we covered in our discussions of the majority decision and the extremely passionate dissent, he barely has a seventh-grade education. Some strange man shows up to Lodi, California (for those unfamiliar, think 'Deliverance' with more sunshine) and becomes his best friend. That "friend" encourages Hayat's pro-Taliban viewpoints and his boasted plans to attend a training camp - going so far as to chide him for not attending. That "friend" was a paid FBI informant.

Despite that informant's lack of credibility (he got the paid gig after falsely claiming to see Osama Bin Laden's second-in-command and other top terrorists at a Lodi mosque), a juror who made some very questionable (and some would say, racist) statements during and after trial, and an expert witness who was fully full of feces, Hayat was convicted. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed that conviction last week. Lest you think we're the only ones confused by the case, we surveyed a few others thoughts.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction of Hamid Hayat, a man with a seventh-grade education who confessed to attending a terrorist training camp after intense interrogation. His statements were corroborated by the testimony of a paid informant, with credibility issues, and the testimony of an expert who stated that the prayer in Hayat’s wallet would only be carried by a “jihadist.”

He was convicted of providing material support to terrorists, or as the government put it, having a “jihadi heart” and a “jihadi mind.” The majority upheld the conviction, while a passionate Judge Tashima issued a twenty-five page dissent.

This should have been a fascinating case. It has support of terrorism, juror bias, FBI informants, and the government's strategy of using preemptive prosecution to catch terrorists before they terrorize. Do we punish people for possibly, maybe, thinking somewhat about someday terrorizing? Or, as with most crimes, do we wait for a conspiracy, attempt, or actual completion? It's constitutional rights versus national security, something we can all be intrigued by.

The dissent addressed this issue passionately, for 25 pages. The majority talked about grammar. Yay!

This is an 83-page opinion, so we'll give the super-abridged majority today, and return with the dissent later this week.

Bobby Joe Knight served 20 years in a California prison for sexual assault. Though his sentence ended in 2004, he's still behind bars.

Why? California's Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), which allows the state to initiate civil proceedings to hold a certain sub-species of violent sexual predators in a state hospital if the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is likely to "engage in sexually violent behavior" due to a mental disorder.

Last November, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 35, also known as the CASE Act. Nearly 81 percent of voters supported the initiative.

Proposition 35 placed new restrictions on those who traffic in humans, either for labor or for the sex trade. One of those restrictions led to an injunction by the district court, and could lead to the Ninth Circuit.

What's the issue? Free speech, naturally.