Skip to main content

Are you a legal professional? Visit our professional site

Search for legal issues
For help near (city, ZIP code or county)
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location

Hearsay Ruling re Writings on Firearm and Other Objects, Plus Other Criminal Cases

Article Placeholder Image
By FindLaw Staff on May 04, 2010 4:29 PM

In US v. Hall, No. 09-1263, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for mail and wire fraud, holding that 1) evidence regarding one of the trusts involved in the charged fraudulent scheme was inextricably intertwined with the indictment and thus properly admitted; and 2) even if defendant's website did not convince any of defendant's victims to invest and was not widely viewed, the district court nonetheless did not err in applying the mass-marketing enhancement.

In US v. Statman, No. 09-1452, the Eighth Circuit affirmed defendants' wire fraud sentences, on the grounds that 1) nothing in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) or in the Booker remedy opinion required robotic incantations that each statutory factor had been considered; 2) the district court considered the relevant factors and provided a reasoned basis for its sentence; and 3) the district court did not clearly err in relying on the detailed testimony of Arkansas Development Finance Authority employees, or in adopting the government's proposed restitution figure.

In US v. Buchanan, No. 09-2569, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's drug and firearm possession convictions, holding that 1) the imprint on defendant's gun, and the matching markings on defendant's key and safe inscription were not hearsay; 2) the district court appropriately treated defendant's safe as chattel, and thus the best evidence rule did not apply; 3) defense counsel did not move for a continuance or argue to the district court that if he had received earlier notice of the government's expert evidence, then he would have been able to move for its exclusion or present a more effective defense; and 4) the evidence cited by the district court sufficiently established that defendant constructively possessed the drugs.

Related Resources

Find a Lawyer

More Options