Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed their convictions related to their involvement in the robbery of a pharmacy. Defendant Taylor argued that he was incapacitated when he incriminated himself post-arrest and the admission of his statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. The court concluded that Taylor's post-arrest statements were not voluntary; admitting the statements into evidence was not harmless; the court vacated and remanded for a new trial; the admission of Taylor's statements, to the extent they could be used against Defendants Rosario and Vasquez, was not harmless error as to them; and the court vacated Rosario and Vasquez's conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana. At issue was whether the October 2009 memorandum issued by the Department of Justice created a de facto "rescheduling" of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., such that defendant could not validly be charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court held that the memo did not purport to reclassify marijuana from its current listing as a Schedule I substance under the CSA; the CSA mandated a particular rulemaking procedure through which the Attorney General may "reschedule" a substance; because the Attorney General did not follow that procedure here, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance; and a U.S. Attorney's decision to exercise prosecutorial discretion by not prosecuting uses of marijuana consistent with state law, in the circumstances presented here, did not conflict with the principles of federalism, preemption, or the supremacy of federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Canori" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal sua sponte of his class actin complaint brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on application of New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 901(b). CPLR 901(b) prohibits class action suits for statutory damages. The court concluded that, in light of Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, not state law, governs when a federal TCPA suit may proceed as a class action. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank v. Independence Energy Group LLC" on Justia Law