Archive | cross-examination

Wednesday, March 16th, 2016

Second Circuit Updates – March 16, 2016 – Home Confinement as Condition of Supervised Release, Sentencing Enhancement for Using Gun in a Robbery, Scope of Cross Examination

Three short summary orders today:

First up, United States v. Fiume: In this case, the sentencing court imposed “GPS tracking” as a condition of Mr. Fiume’s supervised release, but never stated that it was also imposing home detention, a “separate and additionally burdensome condition.” Nonetheless, a condition of home detention appeared in Mr. Fiume’s written judgment. The circuit vacated the home detention condition and remanded for the written judgment to be corrected. The circuit otherwise upheld Mr. Fiume’s 10-month prison sentence as reasonable.

Next up, another sentencing case, United States v. Crum. Here, Mr. Crum argued that the sentencing court should not have enhanced his weapon possession sentence on the basis that the weapon had been used in a robbery. The circuit disagreed, finding the enhancement was not clearly erroneous based on a witness’s 911 calls about a gunpoint robbery by two men, one wearing black and one …

Posted By
Categories: cross-examination, sentencing, supervised release

Continue Reading
Sunday, May 15th, 2011

Bad Cop, Bad Cop

United States v. Cedeno, No. 09-1857-cr (2d Cir. May 2, 2011) (Jacobs, Calabresi and Chin, CJJ)

In 1990, the Appellate Division specifically found that a New York City detective lied at a suppression hearing, by “patently tailor[ing]” his testimony to avoid suppression. Here, the circuit held that it was error for the district court to categorically preclude cross-examination of that same detective at trial about the adverse credibility finding.

The district court, relying on United States v. Cruz, 894 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990), had held that the Appellate Division’s finding went to the detective’s credibility in a specific hearing, not that he lacked veracity generally, and that, here, the subject matter of the testimony would be different because the detective would not be testifying about the constitutionality of a search.

The circuit faulted this inquiry as “too narrow,” because Cruz did not “purport to set out a rigid two-part …

Posted By
Categories: cross-examination, Uncategorized

Continue Reading