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

Rivas, serving an indeterminate life sentence in New York for the second-degree murder of his former girlfriend, sought habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court dismissed the petition as barred by the statute's one-year limitations period. On remand, the district court again dismissed, after hearing evidence of actual innocence. The Second Circuit reversed, finding that Rivas raised a credible and compelling claim of actual innocence, based on new information not presented to the jury that dramatically undermines the central forensic evidence linking him to the crime of which he was convicted. There was essentially unchallenged testimony from a respected forensic pathologist, that the victim was almost certainly killed at a time when he had an uncontested alibi, and not earlier. That evidence warrants an equitable exception to AEDPA’s limitation period, allowing the petitioner to have his otherwise time-barred claims heard by a federal court. View "Rivas v. Fischer" on Justia Law

After obtaining an indictment against Jacques for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 12-year-old girl, the government filed a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty. Included in the Notice, as required by the Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. 3591, were allegations of aggravating factors the government proposed to put before the jury in the penalty phase that would follow a conviction. These factors included allegations of six prior rapes and an attempt to obstruct justice by influencing the testimony of a juvenile witness/victim. In pre-trial orders, the judge struck allegations of three of the prior rapes and suppressed evidence of the attempt to obstruct justice as having been obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Second Circuit affirmed exclusion of evidence of two of the alleged prior rapes, remanded the third for reconsideration, leaving the outcome to the district court’s discretion, and vacated exclusion of evidence of the attempted obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Jacque" on Justia Law

Convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(2), Williams was sentenced to 70 months in prison. The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that statements made by the prosecution during summation and rebuttal summation deprived him of his right to a fair trial. He focused on criticisms by the prosecution of certain arguments made by the defense, on the prosecution’s characterization of witness testimony as “the truth” and “the absolute truth,” and on the prosecution’s statement in rebuttal summation that “[t]his is not a search for reasonable doubt. This is a search for truth and the truth is that the defendant possessed that gun on July 25, 2009.” No objection to these statements was made at trial. The government attorney erred in her statement that “this is not a search for reasonable doubt,” but the error was followed by correct instructions and Williams was not prejudiced. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Freeman was convicted in New York of second-degree assault, second-degree vehicular assault, common law driving while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of an accident. He filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in identifying as harmless the erroneous admission of evidence obtained from a blood draw compelled pursuant to a warrant found invalid under state law. The Second Circuit affirmed denial. The challenged harmlessness determination regarding an error of state law was itself a decision of state law that cannot form the basis for federal habeas relief. View "Freeman v. Kadien" on Justia Law

Defendants are title insurance companies, members of TIRSA, a rate service organization. Plaintiffs purchased title insurance from defendants. Rates are established and regulated by the New York Insurance Department, N.Y. Ins. Law 2305, 2306, which reviews loss experience and financial data submitted by individual insurers and rate service organizations, licensed by the Insurance Department. TIRSA annually submits data from its members and prepares the New York Title Insurance Rate manual, which is submitted to the Insurance Department for approval and sets forth collectively-fixed rates, which are based on: value of property insured; cost of insuring risk associated with issuing the policy; costs associated with examination of records; and agency commissions. While title agents do provide actual services, commissions exceed the value of the services. Plaintiffs alleged that title insurers get business by encouraging those making purchasing decisions to direct business to that insurer. The complaint alleged claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2607(a); the Sherman Act; New York General Business Law; and unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed. The Second Circuit affirmed. The complaint did not allege facts that would allow a plausible inference that defendants paid kickbacks for business referrals in violation of RESPA. View "Galiano v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and 2 and was sentenced to 151 months, for participation in an advance-fee scheme, in which the victim is persuaded to pay a sum of money up front in order to receive a larger sum of money at a later. The district court concluded, based in part on email exchanges, that he was a manager or supervisor of at least one other participant in the scheme, and that the overall criminal activity involved five or more participants. The Second Circuit affirmed. Courts may rely on unique email addresses in assessing a defendant’s role in a scheme and calculating the number of participants for sentencing purposes. View "United States v. Diamreyan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2252A(a)(5)(B), 2256(8)(A), and 2256(8)(C). The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated because he was compelled as a parolee to make self-incriminating statements during a mandatory polygraph examination and a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Batista (a former veteran police officer) appealed his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and ecstasy, 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1); (2) conspiracy to commit bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349 and 1344; bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344; and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2); and his sentence of a 180-month term of imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Alcantara, who cooperated in the investigation, appealed his 120-month sentence, following a guilty plea of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1); and distribution of and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, sentencing enhancements, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, alleged due process violations (based on a claim that a juror was asleep during trial), and a wiretapping warrant. View "United States v. Hiciano " on Justia Law

Brault applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in 2007, claiming that he became disabled in 2006 because of nerve damage in his left arm and a cervical spine injury he sustained in a motor-vehicle accident. After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, he requested an administrative hearing. Brault’s counsel asserted a Daubert-like objection to the vocational expert’s testimony, contending it was unreliable. The ALJ never directly responded to the objections, but issued a ruling which relied on the VE’s testimony, agreed that positions existed in the eight DOT positions the VE had identified at the numbers the VE had given, and denied Brault’s application for benefits. The district court affirmed the denial. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge was not required to state expressly his reasons for accepting a vocational expert’s challenged testimony.View "Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in consolidated cases are the parents of disabled children, challenging the procedural and substantive adequacy of Individualized Education Plans that the New York City Department of Education, developed for their children pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education 8 Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400. They also sought reimbursement of funds spent on private-school tuition for their children. In one case, the Second Circuit held that the district court properly agreed with the determinations of the hearing officer who initially considered the matter and properly rejected the subsequent determinations of the state review officer. In the other case, the Second Circuit found that the magistrate judge, who recommended granting the Department's motion for summary judgment, overstated the extent to which federal courts must defer to the findings of state administrative officers, but that the Department's motion was properly granted. View "M.H. v. NY City Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law