Civil Procedure, Constitutional and Criminal Matters - U.S. Second Circuit
U.S. Second Circuit - The FindLaw 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Civil Procedure, Constitutional and Criminal Matters

In US v. Basciano, No. 09-0281, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's racketeering and conspiracy to commit murder convictions in part where, because distinct factual elements must be proved to establish 18 U.S.C. section 1959(a)(5) and section 1962(d) conspiracies, a defendant may be prosecuted under both statutes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.  However, the court reversed in part on the ground that defendant's prosecution on a successive substantive racketeering charge, as pleaded in the pending indictment, was barred by double jeopardy.

Goldberg v. Danaher, No. 08-5387, involved a due process challenge to the firearm permit revocation procedures employed by the Connecticut Department of Public Safety and Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.  The Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that D. Conn. Local Civil Rule 7(a)(1) clearly contemplated instances where a plaintiff might stand on his pleadings in response to a motion to dismiss, rather than filing an opposition; and it provided that automatic dismissal was not authorized in such cases.

Kuck v. Danaher, No. 08-5368, concerned another action challenging, on due process grounds, the firearm permit renewal procedures employed by the Connecticut Department of Public Safety and the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint in part on the ground that, whether authorized or not, the fact that state officials required plaintiff to produce proof of citizenship or legal residency in connection with his permit renewal application was hardly outrageous or shocking.  However, the court reversed in part, holding that, while the court was often solicitous of governmental interests, particularly those related to the public's safety, it could not accept, at least without additional factual support, the months-long delay that Connecticut attempted to justify.

Related Resources