Archive | Uncategorized
Magistrate Judge’s Denial of Post-Trial Motions Not Reviewable on Appeal
UNITED STATES V. LAURIA (PAPPAS), NO. 13-269-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 10, 2013) (LIVINGSTON, CARNEY, AND KOELTL) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The Court in this summary order rejected for lack of jurisdiction a defendant’s appeal from a magistrate judge’s order denying various post-trial motions. The Court noted that a magistrate judge’s general authority is derived from 18 U.S.C. § 636, which contemplates authority conferred by, among other things, referral from a district judge under certain provisions at subsection (b). In this case, it was unclear whether referral occurred pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), or (b)(3), though it did not matter. Each provision required the district court to enter a final order, which never occurred. Absent such a final order, the magistrate judge’s determinations were not reviewable on appeal.…
Refusal to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas Directed at Third Parties Is Not Immediately Appealable
United States v. Punn, No. 13-2780-cr (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2013) (Pooler, Lynch, and Droney), available here
Conspiracy Charges Barred by Statute of Limitations
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
Tactical Decision Not to Object to Condition of Supervised Release Waives Review of the Condition on Appeal
UNITED STATES V. PINNEY, NO. 12-3954-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 9, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND STRAUB) (SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
The Court in this summary order rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge to a condition of his supervised release. The defendant agreed to the condition being added to the terms of his release and waived his rights to a hearing and assistance of counsel prior to imposition. At a later sentencing hearing for violating that same condition, he never objected to the condition and only asked the district court to be lenient. The Court characterized the decision not to challenge the condition’s “obvious” constitutional infirmities prior to sentencing as tactical. As a result, any objections to the condition were waived.…
Involuntary Confession Erroneously Admitted at Conspiracy Trial Warrants New Trials for All Three Co-Defendants
UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR, ET. AL., NOS. 11-2201(L), 11-2426(CON), 11-2639(CON) (2D CIR. DEC. 4, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND CARNEY), AVAILABLE HERE
This published decision vacated three defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery of a Manhattan pharmacy in 2008 and brandishing of a firearm. The Court remanded for new trials after determining that interrogating agents took undue advantage of one defendant’s diminished mental state and overbore his will in obtaining what was held to be an involuntary confession. The Court further held that admitting the tainted confession at trial, even with a limiting instruction, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to all three defendants.
According to the opinion, Vasquez drove Taylor, Rosario and a woman named Luana Miller to rob a pharmacy in Manhattan on Christmas Eve in 2008. With Miller already inside posing as a customer after hours, Rosario entered the pharmacy brandishing a gun …
2011 Sentence for 1968 Pan Am Hijacking Was Not Reviewable on Appeal
UNITED STATES V. SOLTREN, NO. 12-4755-cr (2D CIR. DEC. 2, 2013) (KEARSE, JACOBS, AND PARKER) (AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER), AVAILABLE HERE
On appeal a second time from the imposition of sentence, this defendant challenged the district court’s decision to impose fifteen years’ custody with the possibility of parole after five years as procedurally and substantively unreasonable pursuant to Booker. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit air piracy and kidnapping based upon his participation in the hijacking of a 1968 Pan American Airways flight from New York to Puerto Rico. He remained in Cuba until returning to the United States in 2009, at which time he was arrested. The district court first sentenced him to fifteen years’ custody without the possibility of parole, which was vacated. The Court held it was error to impose a sentence that excluded the possibility of parole because it was a benefit that was available for crimes committed in 1968. Unfortunately for the defendant’s …