Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 19 of 19
Full-Text Articles in Law
What's The Deference?: United States V. Hinkson Outlines A New Test For “Abuse Of Discretion”, William B. Jones
What's The Deference?: United States V. Hinkson Outlines A New Test For “Abuse Of Discretion”, William B. Jones
Golden Gate University Law Review
Prior to United States v. Hinkson, under the prevailing analysis used to determine whether the trial court had engaged in an “abuse of discretion,” there was arguably “no effective limit” on an appellate court’s power to substitute its own judgment for that of the district court. Rather, it was left to the appellate panel to decide whether it had a “definite and firm conviction that [a] mistake [had] been committed,” or whether a trial court’s factual finding was even “permissible.” But in Hinkson, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit took the opportunity to elaborate on the abuse-of-discretion standard. …
“When Can I Tase Him, Bro?”: Bryan V. Mcpherson And The Propriety Of Police Use Of Tasers, Sam W. Wu
“When Can I Tase Him, Bro?”: Bryan V. Mcpherson And The Propriety Of Police Use Of Tasers, Sam W. Wu
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Case Summary begins by detailing the factual and procedural history of Bryan. Next, it outlines the “reasonable use of force” analysis of the Ninth Circuit as applied to Tasers. Finally, it concludes by briefly discussing the broad implications of Bryan, both for law enforcement and for every individual who may someday find himself or herself facing a police officer armed with a Taser.
Possession Of Reading Material And Intent To Commit A Crime In United States V. Curtin, Anna L. Benvenue
Possession Of Reading Material And Intent To Commit A Crime In United States V. Curtin, Anna L. Benvenue
Golden Gate University Law Review
The majority opinion in United States v. Curtin held that simple possession of reading material can be evidence of a defendant's criminal intent, even without proof that the accused ever read the materials. Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott, who wrote the majority decision, overruled prior Ninth Circuit precedent that would have made such evidence inadmissible as irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. However, the majority also found the district court judge's failure to properly analyze the evidence under Rule 403 warranted reversal and remand. As a result, the remaining seven judges on the panel filed or joined concurrences, rather …
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
A Crime Victim's Right To Be "Reasonably Heard": Kenna V. United States District Court, Michael P. Vidmar
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Kenna v. United States District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that under the Crime Victim's Rights Act ("CYRA"), a crime victim's right to be "reasonably heard" during sentencing was not limited to written impact statements, but included the right to allocute at any public proceeding. This was an issue of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. "No court of appeals had addressed the scope of this particular CVRA right." Two district courts had considered this issue and had reached contrary decisions. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the United States District Court for the District of Utah that a plausible …
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Defining "Ordinary Prudential Doctrines" After Booker: Why The Limited Remand Is The Least Of Many Evils, Michael Guasco
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limited-remand approach in comparison with the approaches taken by the different circuits. Part I discusses the history of the Sentencing Guidelines and the cases, up to and including Booker, that completely changed the way the Sentencing Guidelines were used. Part II sets forth the history of the traditional plain error standard of review and the contemporary "Plain Error Problem." Part III examines the limited-remand approach and compares it with the approach taken in other circuits. Part IV argues that the limited-remand approach is the best of a list of bad possible choices but that the Ninth …
Violence In The Courts: The Ninth Circuit's Attempt To Grapple With And Pin Down What Is A "Crime Of Violence" In United States V. Serna, Daniel S. Cho
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note examines the limitations of the strict categorical approach; the method by which sentencing courts and courts of review determine whether an offense is a crime of violence for sentence enhancement purposes. Part I of this Note examines the "crime of violence" sentence enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"). Part II examines the Ninth Circuit's analysis of what constitutes a crime of violence in United States v. Serna. Part III proposes that the types of sources available to sentencing courts when analyzing whether an offense is a violent crime should be expanded based on Justice O'Connor's dissenting opinion …
United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten
United States V. Howard: Refocusing Probable Cause For Probationers And Parolees, Sean A. Kersten
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note argues that the Ninth Circuit rigidly followed circuit precedent to create and apply an incorrect standard to determine whether probable cause existed to believe that Howard resided at an unreported address. The court should have determined the reasonableness of the search by balancing Howard's reduced expectation of privacy as a probationer with legitimate governmental interests. Furthermore, the court's analysis served to protect the property at the unreported address rather than Howard's Fourth Amendment privacy rights. This decision is contrary to the principle articulated in Katz v. United States, which states the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect people, …
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Dangerous Balance: The Ninth Circuit's Validation Of Expansive Dna Testing Of Federal Parolees, Claire S. Hulse
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I provides a background of federal DNA testing legislation, the Fourth Amendment implications of DNA testing and two DNA testing cases leading up to the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part II analyzes the plurality and dissenting opinions of the U.S. v. Kincade decision. Part III argues that the plurality's balancing test has a potential for inappropriate application. Finally, Part IV concludes that the Kincade balancing test should be narrowly applied as precedent after a meaningful balancing of interests, and not as a facade for ever-expanding government interests.
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Throw A Dog A Suspect: When Using Police Dogs Becomes An Unreasonable Use Of Force Under The Fourth Amendment, Lisa K. Sloman
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note contends that a dog bite lasting up to a minute is excessive force under these circumstances and violated Miller's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures. Part I of this Note provides a general synthesis of current Fourth Amendment seizure law as it applies to using police dogs. Part II discusses the facts of Miller and the court's application of current case law to those facts. Finally, Part III argues that the court failed to properly apply existing Fourth Amendment seizure law to the facts in Miller, and therefore, the force used was unreasonable.
Rico Conspiracy: The Ninth Circuit Distinguishes Itself From The Rising Costs Of Guilty Thoughts, Stephanie Profitt
Rico Conspiracy: The Ninth Circuit Distinguishes Itself From The Rising Costs Of Guilty Thoughts, Stephanie Profitt
Golden Gate University Law Review
Part I of this Comment briefly surveys the legislative development of the RICO statute. It discusses the elements of a RICO cause of action and disputes that have arisen among the circuit courts over its interpretation. Part II of this Comment examines the development of civil liability for conspiring to participate in a RICO enterprise. It focuses on cases that have significantly shaped civil RICO conspiracy liability throughout the circuit courts. Part III explores the split that has developed among the circuits over the definition of RICO conspiracy liability, specifically, the difference between the Ninth Circuit's definition and that of …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Buckland, Brian Feinberg
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States v. Buckland, the defendant appealed his drug conviction, arguing that the penalty provisions of the federal drug statute under which he was convicted and sentenced was facially unconstitutional. In light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the primary issue was whether Calvin Wayne Buckland's sentence could be enhanced without the enhancement factor, in this case the quantity of the drugs he was responsible for, being determined by a jury. After rehearing the case en banc, the court concluded that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face. However, the court concluded …
Just Desserts, Or A Rotten Apple? Will The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Doe V. Otte Stand To Ensure That Convicted Sex Offenders Are Not Excessively Punished?, Colleen Miles
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Doe v. Otte, the Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Alaska's sex offender registration and notification statute. In finding that Alaska's statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Ninth Circuit focused on the legislature's intent and the statute's punitive effect in deciding how far a state, and more specifically Alaska, can go to inform its citizens of the whereabouts of released sex offenders.
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
United States V. Ruiz: Are Plea Agreements Conditioned On Brady Waivers Unconstitutional?, Shane Cahill
Golden Gate University Law Review
In United States u. Ruiz, the Ninth Circuit ruled that such waivers are unconstitutional, violating the principle that defendants in criminal cases must knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty for the plea to be constitutionally valid. The purpose of this article is to discuss the law leading up to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ruiz, to examine the court's ruling itself, and to analyze the impact this decision could have on plea bargaining, an integral part of the criminal justice system. In Part II, this Note discusses Ruiz's facts and procedural history. Part III, section A outlines the prosecution's duty to …
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Criminal Procedure - United States V. Nordby, Adriano Hrvatin
Golden Gate University Law Review
The Nordby court held that a finding of drug quantity under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) by the district court at sentencing pursuant to a preponderance of the evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the notice and jury-trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment when drug quantity was used to increase the prescribed statutory maximum penalty. In requiring that drug quantity be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the Ninth Circuit overruled nearly fifteen years of its own precedent.
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Lajoie V. Thompson: Does The Ninth Circuit Grant Young Victims Less Protection Under Rape Shield Statutes?, Crystal Dykman
Golden Gate University Law Review
In LaJoie v. Thompson, the Ninth Circuit held that the trial court's preclusion of evidence regarding the victim's prior sexual abuse by others as a sanction for LaJoie's failure to comply with the 15-day notice requirement in Oregon's rape shield law violated LaJoie's Sixth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit further held that the preclusion of this evidence regarding the prior sexual abuse of the victim warranted habeas relief. In Part II, this Note discusses LaJoie's facts and procedural history. Part III outlines the history of the Habeas Corpus statutes and discusses the Oregon and Federal rape shield statutes, with an …
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Criminal Procedure - Powers V. Plumas Unified School District, Marnee Milner
Golden Gate University Law Review
In a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit in Powers v. Plumas Unified School District addresses whether a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Because the United States Supreme Court has yet to address this issue, there is a split among circuit courts. The Fifth Circuit, contrary to the Seventh Circuit, holds that a dog sniff of a person constitutes a search. The Ninth Circuit agrees with the Fifth Circuit. In Powers, the Ninth Circuit found that a dog sniff of the plaintiff deprived him of his constitutional right to be free from …
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Criminal Procedure - Macfarlane V. Walter, Jennifer Benesis
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Macfarlane v. Walter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Washington state and county early-release credit systems for prisoners violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The early-release credit systems unconstitutionally provide fewer early-release credits to pre-trial detainees who cannot afford to post bail than to similarly-situated prisoners who post bail and serve their entire sentences after trial in state prison. The court held that awarding fewer good behavior credits for time served in county jail than for time served in state prison denies equal protection of the law to pre-trial …
Criminal Procedure - Parretti V. United States, Nedia L. Desouza
Criminal Procedure - Parretti V. United States, Nedia L. Desouza
Golden Gate University Law Review
In Parretti v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, addressed two constitutional claims: (1) whether Giancarlo Parretti's arrest pursuant to an Extradition Treaty with France violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether his detention without bail prior to the French government's request for his extradition violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The en banc court refused to address these issues, however, claiming that since Parretti fled the United States while his appeal was pending, he was a fugitive from justice. The en banc court therefore dismissed his appeal …
Mckenzie V. Day: Is Twenty Years On Death Row Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Amber A. Bell
Mckenzie V. Day: Is Twenty Years On Death Row Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Amber A. Bell
Golden Gate University Law Review
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided that capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This note raises the question whether extended incarceration on death row invokes the protections of the Eighth Amendment. This note examines four aspects of this issue. First, it traces the facts and procedural history of McKenzie. Second, the history of cruel and unusual punishment jurisprudence is discussed. Third, it details and analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions. Finally, it demonstrates that McKenzie is a poorly reasoned opinion.