Author Archive | Edward S. Zas
United States v. Coston, No. 12-4622-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (Katzmann, Winter, and Calabresi), available here
United States v. Punn, No. 13-2780-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2013) (Pooler, Lynch, and Droney), available here
United States v. Grimm, et al., Nos. 12-4310-cr; 12-4365-cr; 12-4371-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Straub), available here
United States v. McGeoch, No. 12-5012-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (Walker, Cabranes, and Parker) (summary order), available here
United States v. Cardona, No. 12-4612-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Parker) (second amended summary order), available here
United States v. Grimm, et al., Nos. 12-4310-cr; 12-4365-cr; 12-4371-cr (2d Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, Straub) (unpublished one-page order)
United States v. Quintieri, No. 13-464-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 2, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, and Parker) (summary order) (as amended), available here
United States v. Murray, No. 11-0351-cr (2d Cir. Nov. 27, 2013) (Leval, Sack, and Hall), available here
This published decision holds that the district court’s refusal to allow the defendant to present surrebuttal evidence to respond to new evidence introduced by the government on rebuttal denied him his right to present a meaningful defense. Judge Hall dissents.
A jury found Murray, a firefighter, guilty of four counts relating to the cultivation of marijuana plants in the basement of a Bellerose, Queens, home owned by Cody, a fellow firefighter who knew Murray. The trial was essentially a credibility contest between Cody, who pled guilty and testified for the government, and Murray, who testified in his own defense. Cody claimed that Murray hatched the idea of growing marijuana in Cody’s house and that Murray was intimately involved in the crime. Murray, in contrast, testified that he knew nothing of the marijuana and visited Cody’s home only about five to seven …
United States v. Simmons, No. 12-1637-cr (2d Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) (Pooler, Lohier, and Carney) (summary order), available here
The panel held that the seizure of a firearm from the defendant’s room did not violate the Fourth Amendment because he gave “implied consent” to the seizure.
The district court found that, by telling police officers the precise location of the gun, the defendant implicitly consented to them seizing it. The court also found that such consent was given voluntarily.
The Circuit, finding no clear error in these findings, affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. …
United States v. Rowley, No. 12-3975 (2d Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) (Kearse, Jacobs, Parker) (summary order), available here
This summary order reaffirms that the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply to defendants who were convicted and sentenced before August 3, 2010. See United States v. Diaz, 627 F.3d 930, 931 (2d Cir. 2010).
The one noteworthy aspect of the summary order is that the Court, apparently for the first time, explicitly rejected the Sixth Circuit’s contrary decision in United States v. Blewett, 719 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2013). The panel noted that Blewett “arguably contradicted” binding Sixth Circuit precedent and has since been vacated pending rehearing en banc. The panel further stated that Blewett appeared to be “wrongly decided” and that every circuit to consider Blewett “has declined to follow its lead.” …