New Stuff-Federal Conviction Reversals

The following is a publication of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of
New York. The cases are from United States Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. The
opinions contain at least one point favorable to criminal defendants.
The purpose is to give CJA Panel Attorneys a shortcut to case law favoring their clients. All cases
should be researched to see if they are still viable. A precedent in one jurisdiction is not necessarily the law
elsewhere. None of the cases should be cited without first reviewing the entire opinion. This warning is
especially for prisoners and defendants who wish to rely on the cases herein. A one-line summary cannot
possibly be sufficient to cite these cases without first reading each.
These materials may be duplicated for any lawyer providing legal services to indigent defendants.
Duplication is encouraged. These materials may be reprinted by other free publications or free on-line
providers serving the criminal defense bar. Attribution to this office is requested.
This collection has previously existed as Reversible Errors and Errores Juris. The new name reflects
that coverage is now limited to errors overturning federal criminal convictions, not sentences, nor are other
aspects of the criminal justice system addressed. There are two reasons. First, it has been difficult to update
so many areas of law on a regular basis. Second, federal sentencing law has changed drastically in recent years
and it will take time to determine the common bases for reversal among federal jurisdictions.
Updates can be found at www.nynd-fpd.org The publications will be distributed by e-mail in
Acrobat 8.0. Those who need an Acrobat reader can download one free at www.adobe.com .
Updated 12/08
Alexander Bunin, Editor, Federal Public Defender, 39 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12207
alex.bunin@fd.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Right to Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Arrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Search of Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Search of Private Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Search of Commercial Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Search of Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Search of Real Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Defendant’s Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Recusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Indictments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Limitation of Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Pretrial Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Severance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Jeopardy / Estoppel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Plea Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Guilty Pleas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Timely Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Jury Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Jury Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Confrontation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Impeachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Co-Defendant’s Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Misconduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Extraneous Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Expert Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Entrapment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Defenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Jury Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Deliberations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Speech / Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Interstate Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Conspiracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Extortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
CCE / RICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Fraud / Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Money Laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Aiding and Abetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Perjury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
False Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Contempt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Pornography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Violent Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Assimilative Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Miscellaneous Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Federal Convictions Reversed
Right to Counsel
United States v. Cash, 47 F.3d 1083
(11th Cir. 1995) (Defendant could not
waive counsel without proper findings
by court).
United States v. McKinley, 58 F.3d 1475
(10th Cir. 1995) (Court improperly
denied defendant self-representation).
United States v. McDermott, 64 F.3d
1448 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.
1121 (1996) (Barring defendant from
sidebars with stand-by counsel denied
self-representation).
United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092
(3rd Cir. 1995) (Defendant did not forfeit
counsel by threatening his appointed
attorney).
United States v. Duarte-Higareda, 68
F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 1995) (Court failed to
appoint counsel for evidentiary hearing).
Delguidice v. Singletary, 84 F.3d 1359
(11th Cir. 1996) (Psychological testing of
a defendant without notice to counsel
violated the Sixth Amendment).
Williams v. Turpin, 87 F.3d 1204 (11th
Cir. 1996) (State that created a statutory
right to a motion for new trial must
afford counsel and an evidentiary
hearing).
United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782
(2d Cir. 1996) (Cooperating defendant
had the right to have counsel present
when attending a presentence
debriefing).
Weeks v. Jones, 100 F.3d 124 (11th Cir.
1996) (Right to counsel in a habeas claim
did not turn on the merits of the
petition).
United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111
(9th Cir. 1996) (Court did not sufficiently
explain to a defendant the dangers of pro
se representation).
Carlo v. Chino, 105 F.3d 493 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1036 (1998) (State
statutory right to post-booking phone
calls was protected by federal due
process).
United States v. Amlani, 111 F.3d 705
(9th Cir. 1997) (Prosecutor’s repeated
disparagement of an attorney in front of his
client, denied the defendant his right to
chosen counsel).
United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d 1136 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 904 (1999)
(Court did not assure a proper waiver of
counsel).
Blankenship v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 312 (5th
Cir. 1997) (When the prosecution sought
discretionary review, the defendant had a
right to counsel).
United States v. Mills, 138 F.3d 928 (11th
Cir.), modified, 152 F.3d 937, cert. denied,
525 U.S. 1003 (1998) (Defendant could not
be made to share codefendant counsel’s
cross-examination of government witness).
United States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Pro se defendant’s late request
for counsel should have been honored).
Henderson v. Frank, 155 F.3d 159 (3rd Cir.
1998) (Defendant was denied counsel at
suppression hearing).
United States v. Klat, 156 F.3d 1258 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (Counsel was required at
competency hearing).
United States v. Iasiello, 166 F.3d 212 (3rd
Cir. 1999) (Indigent defendant had right to
appointed counsel at hearing).
United States v. Proctor, 166 F.3d 396 (1st
Cir. 1999) (Ambiguous request for counsel
tainted previous waiver).
United States v. Leon-Delfis, 203 F.3d 103
(1st Cir. 2000) (Questioning after polygraph
violated defendant’s right to counsel).
United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614
(9th Cir. 2000) (Defendant was denied selfrepresentation
at plea).
United States v. Russell, 205 F.3d 768 (5th
Cir. 2000) (Absence of lawyer due to illness
did not waive right to counsel).
United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 1132 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Defendant did not voluntarily
waive representation).
Buhl v. Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783 (3rd 2000)
(Defendant did not voluntarily waive
counsel at trial).
United States v. Boone, 245 F.3d 352 (4th
Cir. 2001) (Two attorneys must be appointed
for defendant facing death-eligible
crime).
United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268
F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2001) (Court abused
discretion denying substitution of
counsel).
United States v. Davis, 269 F.3d 514
(5th Cir. 2001) (Judge must warn
defendant of effects of hybrid counsel).
Moore v. Puckett, 275 F.3d 685 (8th Cir.
2001) (Court prevented lawyer and
client from speaking during trial).
Manning v. Bowersox, 310 F.3d 571
(8th Cir. 2002) (Use of informants after
defendant was charged violated right to
counsel).
United States v. Midgett, 342 F.3d 321
(4th Cir. 2003) (Defendant should not
have been forced to choose between
right to lawyer and testifying in his own
defense).
Cordova v. Baca, 346 F.3d 924 (9th Cir.
2003) (Reversal for a denial of counsel,
without effective waiver, is automatic).
Caver v. Straub, 349 F.3d 340 (6th Cir.
2003) (Counsel was not present when
jury received additional instructions).
United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161
(9th Cir. 2004) (Defendant did not
knowingly and voluntarily waive
counsel).
Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044 (9th
Cir. 2004) (There was a right to counsel
at sentencing even after previous
waiver).
United States v. Hamilton, 391 F.3d
1066 9th Cir. 2004) (Court allowed
testimony in absence of defense
counsel).
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, 419 F.3d
329 (5th Cir. 2005) (Court improperly
applied crime-fraud exception to
attorney-client privilege).
Jones v. Jamrog, 414 F.3d 585 (6th Cir.
2005) (Defendant not adequately
advised about self-representation).
United States v. Jones, 421 F.3d 359
(5th Cir. 2005) (Defendant did not
intelligently waive counsel at trial).
2 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Collins, 430 F.3d 1260
(10th Cir. 2005) (Defendant was denied
counsel at competency hearing when
lawyer refused to participate pending
motion to withdraw).
United States v. Tucker, 451 F.3d 1176
(10th Cir. 2006) (Request for selfrepresentation
should have been
granted).
United States v. Jones, 452 F.3d 223
(3rd Cir. 2006) (Defendant did not
unequivocally waive counsel).
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548
U.S. 140 (2006) (Denial of chosen
counsel was structural error).
United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza,
472F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006) (Court
prohibited discussion between defendant
and counsel during overnight recess).
Jones v. Walker, 496 F.3d 1216 (11th
Cir. 2007) (Defendant had not clearly
asserted waiver of counsel).
United States v. Ryals, 512 F.3d 416
(7th Cir. 2008) (Court erred by refusing
to appoint new counsel after attorney
withdrew).
United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 249
(2008) (Waiver of counsel was not
knowing and voluntary).
Discovery
United States v. Alzate, 47 F.3d 1103
(11th Cir. 1995) (A prosecutor withheld
exculpatory evidence).
United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144
(6th Cir. 1995) (Request for discovery of
extraneous evidence created a
continuing duty to disclose).
United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239 (7th
Cir. 1995) (Government failed to disclose
drug use and drug dealing by prisonerwitnesses).
United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456
(9th Cir. 1995) (Prosecutor should have
learned of Brady material even if it was
not in her possession).
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)
(Prosecution failed to turn over material
and favorable evidence, sufficient to
change result of case).
United States v. Wood, 57 F.3d 733 (9th Cir.
1995) (Government failed to disclose
favorable FDA materials).
United States v. Camargo-Vergara, 57 F.3d
993 (11th Cir. 1995) (Government failed to
disclose defendant’s post-arrest statement).
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 59 F.3d 17
(2d Cir. 1995) (Court properly required
disclosure of documents subpoenaed by the
grand jury).
United States v. O’Conner, 64 F.3d 355 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1174 (1996)
(Evidence of government witness threats
and collaboration were not disclosed).
In Re Grand Jury, 111 F.3d 1083 (3rd Cir.
1997) (Government could not seek
disclosure of phone conversations that were
illegally recorded by a third party).
United States v. Arnold, 117 F.3d 1308
(11th Cir. 1997) (Prosecutor withheld
exculpatory tapes of government witnesses).
United States v. Vozzella, 124 F.3d 389 (2d
Cir. 1997) (Evidence of perjured testimony
should have been disclosed).
United States v. Fernandez, 136 F.3d 1434
(11th Cir. 1998) (Court must hold hearing
when defendant makes showing of a Brady
violation).
United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925
(9th Cir. 1998) (Brady claim required
hearing).
United States v. Scheer, 168 F.3d 445 (11th
Cir. 1999) (Government failed to disclose it
had intimidated key prosecution witness).
United States v. Ramos, 179 F.3d 1333
(11th Cir. 1999) (Defendant was denied
opportunity to depose witness who was
outside country).
United States v. Riley, 189 F.3d 802 (9th
Cir. 1999) (Intentional destruction of notes
of interview with informant violated Jencks
Act).
Nuckols v. Gibson, 233 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir.
2000) (Government failed to disclose
criminal allegations against key prosecution
witness).
United States v. Abbott, 241 F.3d 29 (1st
Cir. 2001) (Government was obligated to
disclose linkage between plea agreements of
defendant and his mother).
Mitchell v. Gibson, 262 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir.
2001) (Withholding exculpatory
evidence that could have affected
sentence).
Boss v. Pierce, 263 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1078 (2002)
(Witness’s statement were unavailable
to defendant through due diligence).
Dilosa v. Cain, 279 F.3d 259 (5th Cir.
2002) (Failed to disclose hair sample on
victim that was not defendant).
Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040 (9th
Cir), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 942 (2002)
(Prosecutor suppressed exculpatory
evidence affecting witness’s veracity).
Bailey v. Richardson, 339 F.3d 1107
(9th Cir. 2003) (Prosecutor should have
disclosed exculpatory therapy records of
victim).
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Torf), 357
F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2004) (Work product
doctrine applied to criminal defendant’s
attorney).
United States v. Sipe, 388 F.3d 471 (5th
Cir. 2004) (Government failed to reveal
witness’s bias and criminal history).
Gantt v. Roe, 389 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.
2004) (Prosecutor failed to disclose
exculpatory evidence).
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004)
(Defendant was denied exculpatory
evidence).
United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194
(9th Cir), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 887
(2004) (Defendant entitled to
impeaching evidence if material).
United States v. Rivas, 377 F.3d 195 (2d
Cir. 2004) (Government failed to
provide exculpatory evidence until after
verdict).
United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d
453 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 544 U.S.
931 (2005) (Defendant may depose
witnesses who have material favorable
testimony when other access to
testimony is unavailable).
United States v. Blanco, 392 F.3d 382
(9th Cir. 2004) (Government suppressed
information about confidential
informant).
Slutzker v. Johnson, 393 F.3d 373 (3rd
Cir. 2004) (Prosecutor failed to disclose
police reports).
3 Federal Convictions Reversed
Horton v. Mayle, 408 F.3d 570 (9th Cir.
20004) (Prosecutor failed to disclose deal
with key witness).
United States v. Bahamonde, 445 F.3d
1225 (9th Cir. 2006) (Homeland Security
regulation requiring written explanation
for subpoenaing officer violated due
process).
Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S.
867 (2006) (Suppression of victim’s note
alleging sex was consensual denied
defendant material exculpatory
evidence).
Trammell v. McKune, 485 F.3d 546
(10th Cir. 2007) (Suppression of receipts
which were material to show another
was implicated in theft and murder
violated Brady).
United States v. Jernigan, 492 F.3d 1050
(9th Cir. 2007) (Arrest of woman who
resembled defendant should have been
disclosed).
United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221
(2d Cir. 2007) (Government must
produce all evidence establishing its
witness lied).
Tassin v. Cain, 517 F.3d 770 (5th Cir.
2008) (Prosecution failed to disclose
witness’s deal for leniency).
Arrest
United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064
(10th Cir. 1995) (Defendant was seized
while agents held his driver’s license for
over 20 minutes).
United States v. Little, 60 F.3d 708
(10th Cir. 1995) (Requiring a passenger
to go to the baggage area restrained her
liberty).
United States v. Mesa, 62 F.3d 159 (6th
Cir. 1995) (Nervousness and
inconsistencies did not validate
continued traffic stop).
United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217
(6th Cir. 1995) (Defendants were seized
when the troopers separated them from
their vehicle).
United States v. Roberson, 90 F.3d 75
(3rd Cir. 1996) (Anonymous call did not
give officers reasonable suspicion to stop
a defendant on the street merely
because his clothes matched the caller’s
description).
United States v. Davis, 94 F.3d 1465 (10th
Cir. 1996) (No reasonable suspicion for stop
of a defendant known generally as a gang
member and drug dealer).
Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181 (9th
Cir. 1996) (General description of two
African-American males did not justify
stop).
United States v. Jerez, 108 F.3d 684 (7th
Cir. 1997) (Nighttime confrontation by
police at the defendant’s door was a
seizure).
United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Leaving turn signal on violated
no law and did not justify stop).
United States v. Jones, 149 F.3d 364 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Agent lacked reasonable
suspicion for investigatory immigration
stop).
United States v. Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9
(1st Cir. 1999) (Defendant’s 30 minute
handcuffed detention, preventing him from
boarding flight, was not a lawful stop).
United States v. Salzano, 158 F.3d 1107
(10th Cir. 1999) (Cross country trip,
nervousness, nor scent of evergreen,
justified warrantless detention).
United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193 (5th
Cir.), amended, 203 F.3d 883 (2000)
(Continued detention after traffic stop was
unreasonable).
United States v. Freeman, 209 F.3d 464 (6th
Cir. 2000) (Crossing lane-divider did not
create probable cause for traffic stop).
United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186
(9th Cir. 2000) (Tip did not provide
reasonable suspicion for stop).
United States v. Guevara-Martinez, 262
F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2001) (Illegal arrest
tainted later fingerprint evidence).
Northrop v. Trippett, 265 F.3d 372 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 955 (2002)
(Anonymous tip of two black males wearing
brand clothing and selling drugs did not
justify detention).
Sparing v. Village of Olympia Fields, 266
F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2001) (Entering screen
door without consent caused an illegal
arrest).
Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (6th Cir.
2002) (Defendant detained for three hours
in police cruiser in 90-degree heat with no
ventilation was illegal seizure).
Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115 (9th
Cir. 2003) (Detaining employees of
suspected organization was illegal).
United States v. Brown, 401 F.3d 588
(4th Cir. 2005) (Anonymous tip did not
amount to reasonable suspicion to
detain).
United States v. Flores-Sandoval, 422
F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2005) (Lack of
evidence supporting initial detention
required suppression of statement).
United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d
1053 (7th Cir. 2005) (There was no
basis to detain defendant at his home).
United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280
(10th Cir. 2006) (Stopping defendant for
identification was not a consensual
encounter).
United States v. Brown, 448 F.3d 239
(3rd Cir. 2006) (No reasonable suspicion
to detain pedestrians who shared only
the same race as robbery suspects).
United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457
F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2006) (Presence of
Hispanic work crew near Canadian
border did not amount to reasonable
suspicion).
United States v. Colonna, 511 F.3d 431
(4th Cir. 2007) (Defendant held in law
enforcement vehicle for three hours was
arrested and required warnings).
United States v. Tyler, 512 F.3d 405
(7th Cir. 2008) (Open container alone
was insufficient to arrest for public
intoxication).
Search of Persons
United States v. Caicedo, 85 F.3d 1184
(6th Cir. 1996) (Record lacked evidence
to support a finding of the defendant’s
consent to search).
United States v. Eustaquio, 198 F.3d
1068 (8th Cir. 1999) (No reasonable
suspicion to search bulge on defendant’s
midriff).
United States v. Gray, 213 F.3d 998
(8th Cir. 2000) (No reasonable suspicion
to stop defendant for protective frisk).
United States v. Burton, 228 F.3d 524
(4th Cir. 2000) (Officer’s safety alone
4 Federal Convictions Reversed
did not justify search of pocket).
United States v. Miles, 247 F.3d 1009
(9th Cir. 2001) (Manipulating small box
in clothing exceeded pat-down search).
Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871 (9th
Cir. 2001) (Claim of sexual harassment
by officer was allegation of illegal
search).
United States v. Hatcher, 275 F.3d 689
(8th Cir. 2001) (A second pat-down was
held illegal).
United States v. Casadao, 303 F.3d 440
(2d Cir. 2002) (Search of pocket was
overly intrusive).
United States v. Patterson, 340 F.3d 368
(6th Cir. 2003) (Anonymous tip offered
no reliable or meaningful information).
United States v. Neely, 345 F.3d 366
(5th Cir. 2003) (Defendant had
expectation of privacy in clothing taken
from hospital where he was patient).
Doe v. Little Rock School, 380 F.3d 349
(8th Cir. 2004) (Random, suspicion less
searches of students, violated privacy).
Bourgeois v. Peters, 387 F.3d 1303 (11th
Cir. 2004) Unreasonable to require
protesters to pass through metal
detectors).
United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 389
F.3d 864 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549
U.S. 935 (2006) (Fingerprints taken for a
criminal investigation may be subject to
suppression).
United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768
(8th Cir. 2005) (Defendant withdrew his
consent).
United States v. McKoy, 428 F.3d 38 (1st
Cir. 2005) (Parking and license
violations did not justify pat down).
United States v. Flatter, 456 F.3d 1154
(9th Cir. 2006) (Officer had no reason to
believe defendant was armed or
dangerous for pat down).
United States v. Wright, 485 F.3d 45
(1st Cir. 2007) (Reasonable suspicion for
the pat down search cannot be justified
by discovery of weapon).
United States v. Washington, 490 F.3d
765 (9th Cir. 2007) (Initially consensual
encounter can become illegal seizure by
show of force).
United States v. Holmes, 505 F.3d 1288
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (Seizure of keys in pocket
exceeded pat down and rendered items in
locked car inadmissible).
United States v. Barnes, 506 F.3d 58 (1st
Cir. 2007) (Body cavity search required
reasonable suspicion contraband was
hidden).
United States v. Wilson, 506 F.3d 488 (6th
Cir. 2007) (Nervousness alone cannot justify
pat down).
Search of Private
Vehicles
United States v. Adams, 46 F.3d 1080 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Suppression of evidence seized
from motor home was upheld).
United States v. Chavis, 48 F.3d 871 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Court improperly placed the
burden on the defendant to show a
warrantless search occurred).
United States v. Angulo-Fernandez, 53 F.3d
1177 (10th Cir. 1995) (Confusion about who
owned a stalled vehicle did not create
probable cause for its search).
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690
(1996) (Defendant’s motion to suppress
should be given de novo review by the court
of appeals).
United States v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1029 (1999) (Car
could not be impounded for a later search
unless the arrestee could not provide for its
removal).
United States v. Elliott, 107 F.3d 810 (10th
Cir. 1997) (Consent to look in trunk was not
consent to open containers within).
United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d
1324 (9th Cir. 1997) (Defendant did not
consent to search of truck).
United States v. Cooper, 133 F.3d 1394
(11th Cir. 1998) (Defendant had reasonable
expectation of privacy in rental car four
days after contract expired).
United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129 (8th
Cir. 1998) (Continued detention of vehicle
was not justified by articuable facts).
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivas, 151 F.3d
377 (5th Cir. 1998) (Vehicle stop lacked
reasonable suspicion).
United States v. Huguenin, 154 F.3d
547 (6th Cir. 1998) (Checkpoint stop to
merely look for drugs was
unreasonable).
United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364,
rehearing denied, 166 F.3d 747 (5th Cir.
1999) (1. Drilling into trailer was not
routine border search; 2. No evidence
that drug dog’s reaction was an alert).
United States v. Iron Cloud, 171 F.3d
587 (8th Cir. 1999) (Portable breath test
results were inadmissible as evidence of
intoxication).
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1999)
(Speeding ticket does not justify full
search of vehicle).
United States v. Payne, 181 F.3d 781
(6th Cir. 1999) (Parole officer did not
have reasonable suspicion to search
defendant’s trailer and truck).
United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d
1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (No good faith
mistake to warrantless car search).
United States v. Wald, 216 F.3d 1222
(10th Cir. 2000) (Odor of burnt
methamphetamine in passenger
compartment did not provide probable
cause to search trunk).
United States v. Baker, 221 F.3d 438
(3rd Cir. 2000) (No reasonable suspicion
to justify search of trunk).
United States v. Jones, 234 F.3d 234
(5th Cir. 2000) (Continued detention
tainted search despite initial consent).
United States v. Jones, 242 F.3d 215
(4th Cir. 2001) (Anonymous tip did not
justify investigatory stop of vehicle).
United States v. Reinholz, 245 F.3d 765
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 933
(2001) (Warrantless arrest lacked
probable cause).
United States v. Caro, 260 F.3d 1209
(10th Cir. 2001) (Officer needed
probable cause to look for VIN number
inside door).
United States v. Nee, 261 F.3d 79 (1st
Cir. 2001) (Suppression upheld when
officers were found not to be credible
about stop).
United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d571
(6th Cir. 2001) (No reasonable suspicion
for continued detention).
5 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919
(9th Cir. 2001) (Admitting evidence from
illegal stop was not harmless).
United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215
(10th Cir. 2001) (Questioning about
weapons exceeded stop).
United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919
(8th Cir. 2001) (Committing traffic
violation after seeing police did not
create probable cause to search vehicle).
United States v. Valdez, 267 F.3d 395
(5th Cir. 2001) (After computer check
completed motorist should have been
allowed to leave).
United States v. Gomez, 276 F.3d 694
(5th Cir. 2001) (Homeowner had
expectation of privacy to vehicle of third
party parked in driveway).
United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 279
F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (Nervousness
alone did not justify continued
detention).
United States v. Sigmond-Ballesteros,
285 F.3d 1117, rehearing denied, 309
F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 2002) (Lacked
reasonable suspicion to search car for
undocumented aliens).
United States v. Mariscal, 285 F.3d 1127
(9th Cir. 2002) (No reasonable suspicion
of traffic violation).
United States v. Townsend, 305 F.3d
537 (6th Cir. 2002) (Actions of occupants
did not justify continued detention after
stop).
United States v. Colin, 314 F.3d 439 (9th
Cir. 2002) (No reasonable suspicion for
traffic stop).
United States v. Green, 324 F.3d 375
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 823
(2003) (Firearm suppressed when
defendant secured 25 feet from vehicle).
United States v. Golab, 325 F.3d 63 (1st
cir. 2003) (INS lacked reasonable
suspicion to search vehicle).
United States v. Hocker, 333 F.3d 1206
(10th Cir. 2003) (Driver of borrowed car
had standing to contest search of
vehicle).
United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965
(11th Cir. 2003) (Detention exceeded
purpose of traffic stop).
United States v. Richardson, 385 F.3d 625
(6th Cir. 2004) (Seizure of vehicle lacked
reasonable suspicion).
United States v. Colletti, 387 F.3d 618 (7th
Cir. 2004) (Illegal arrest voided vehicle
search).
United States v. Hudson, 405 F.3d 425 (6th
Cir. 2005) (No reasonable suspicion to
detain vehicle).
United States v. Kennedy, 427 F.3d 1136
(8th Cir. 2005) (No probable cause to believe
drugs were in car trunk).
United States v. Buckingham, 433 F.3d 508
(6th Cir. 2006) (Defendant may withdraw
oral consent to search).
United States v. Edgerton, 438 F.3d 1043
(10th Cir. 2006) (Detention after purpose for
stop ended was illegal and tainted consent
to search).
United States v. Laughrin, 438 F.3d 1245
(10th Cir. 2006) (Poor driving record is not
reasonable suspicion for stop).
United States v. Herrera, 444 F.3d 1238
(10th Cir. 2006) (Mistake that truck was a
commercial vehicle, subject to inspection,
was not saved by good faith).
United States v. Mosley, 454 F.3d 249 (3rd
Cir. 2006) (All items seized from illegal
traffic stop must be suppressed).
United States v. McDonald, 453 F.3d 958
(7th Cir. 2006) (Mistake of law did not
excuse illegal traffic stop).
United States v. Andrews, 454 F.3d 919 (8th
Cir.), on rehearing, 465 F.3d 346 (2006) (No
objective basis to determine that car was
following too closely).
United States v. Washington, 455 F.3d 824
(8th Cir. 2006) (Officer’s mistake of law did
not excuse illegal stop of vehicle).
United States v. Jenson, 462 F.3d 399 (5th
Cir. 2006) (Illegal prolonged stop prevented
voluntary consent to search vehicle).
United States v. Henderson, 463 F.3d 27
(1st Cir. 2006) (No basis to search passenger
after traffic stop).
United States v. Spinner, 475 F.3d 356 (D.C.
Cir. 2007) (Police did not have the
reasonable suspicion defendant was armed
and dangerous necessary to justify their
search of his vehicle).
United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 855
(5th Cir. 2007) (Vehicle stop based on
anonymous tip was not supported by
reasonable suspicion, and later consent
was tainted).
United States v. Virden, 488 F.3d 1317
(11th Cir. 2007) (Moving vehicle to
location of drug dog without probable
cause was an illegal seizure).
United States v. Espinoza, 490 F.3d 41
(1st Cir. 2007) (No reasonable suspicion
to stop van for out-of-state plates and
owner’s previous investigation for
human smuggling).
Brendlin v. California, 127 S.Ct. 2400
(2007) (Passenger may challenge traffic
stop).
United States v. Proctor, 489 F.3d 1348
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (Impoundment of
vehicle did not follow an established
inventory policy).
United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070
(9th Cir. 2007) (Defendant’s vehicle was
improperly stopped on reasonable
suspicion of past misdemeanor
violation).
United States v. Reeves, 512 F.3d 123
(4th Cir. 2008) (Anonymous tip was not
corroborated).
United States v. Urrieta, 520 F.3d 569
(6th Cir. 2008) (Extended detention of
defendant following initial traffic stop
was unlawful).
United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740
(6th Cir. 2008) (There was no basis to
detain motorist beyond issuance of
traffic citation).
United States v. Valadez-Valadez, 525
F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2008) (Merely
driving below speed limit does not give
reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle).
Search of
Commercial Vehicles
United States v. Garzon, 119 F.3d 1446
(10th Cir. 1997) (1. Passenger did not
abandon bag by leaving it on bus; 2.
General warrantless search of all bus
passengers by dog was illegal).
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334
(2000) (Manipulation of bag found on
bus was illegal search).
6 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Stephens, 206 F.3d 914
(9th Cir. 2000) (Defendant was illegally
seized and searched on bus).
United States v. Ellis, 330 F.3d 677 (5th
Cir. 2003) (After a general immigration
inspection officers may not detain bus
passengers without individualized
suspicion).
Search of Packages
United States v. Doe, 61 F.3d 107 (1st
Cir. 1995) (Warrantless testing of
packages at an airport checkpoint lacked
justification).
United States v. Ali, 68 F.3d 1468,
modified, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 1996)
(Checking whether the defendant had a
valid export license was not a proper
ground for seizure).
United States v. Odum, 72 F.3d 1279
(7th Cir. 1995) (Court was limited to
facts at the time the stop occurred to
evaluate reasonableness of the seizure).
United States v. Nicholson, 144 F.3d 632
(10th Cir. 1998) (feeling through sides of
bag was a search; Abandonment of bag
was involuntary).
United States v. Fultz, 146 F.3d 1102
(9th Cir. 1998) (Guest had expectation of
privacy in boxes he stored at another’s
home).
United States v. Rouse, 148 F.3d 1040
(8th Cir. 1998) (Search of bags lacked
probable cause).
United States v. Allen, 159 F.3d 832 (4th
Cir. 1999) (Inevitable discovery doctrine
did not apply to cocaine found in duffle
bag later detected by dog and warrant).
United States v. Johnson, 171 F.3d 601
(8th Cir. 1999) (No reasonable suspicion
to intercept delivery of package).
United States v. Osage, 235 F.3d 518
(10th Cir. 2000) (Consent to search
suitcase did not extend to sealed can
inside).
United Staes v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888
(2002) (Police could not open closed
container discovered by previous private
search).
United States v. Hernandez, 279 F.3d
302 (5th Cir. 2002) (Manipulation of
luggage tainted consent to search).
United States v. Escobar, 389 F.3d 781 (8th
Cir. 2004) (Consent to search bag was not
voluntary).
United States v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838 (6th
Cir. 2005) (Resident could not consent to
search of defendant’s zippered suitcase in
closet).
United States v. Purcell, 526 F.3d 953 (6th
Cir. 2008) (There were no exigent
circumstances to search luggage and no one
was present with apparent authority to
consent).
Search of Real
Property
United States v. Hill, 55 F.3d 479 (9th Cir.
1995) (Remand was required to see if there
was a truly viable independent source for
the search).
United States v. Ford, 56 F.3d 265 (D.C. Cir.
1995) (Search under a mattress and behind
a window shade exceeded a protective
sweep).
United States v. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d 1529
(11th Cir. 1995) (Possibility that
surveillance officer was observed, did not
create exigency for warrantless search of
apartment).
United States v. Cabassa, 62 F.3d 470 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Exigent circumstances were not
relevant to the inevitable discovery
doctrine).
United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309 (9th Cir.
1995) (Inevitable discovery doctrine did not
apply where the police simply failed to get a
warrant).
J.B. Manning Corp. v. United States, 86 F.
3d 926 (9th Cir. 1996) (Good faith exception
to the warrant requirement does not affect
motions to return property).
United States v. Leake, 95 F.3d 409 (6th
Cir. 1996) (Neither the independent source
rule, nor the inevitable discovery rule, saved
otherwise inadmissible evidence).
United States v. Madrid, 152 F.3d 1034,
rehearing denied, 160 F.3d 502 (8th Cir.
1998) (Inevitable discovery doctrine did not
save illegal search of house).
United States v. Ivy, 165 F.3d 397 (6th Cir.
1999) (Consent to enter home was not
shown to be voluntary).
United States v. Johnson, 170 F.3d 708
(7th Cir. 1999) (Officers lacked
reasonable suspicion to prevent
occupant from leaving home).
United States v. Kiyuyung, 171 F.3d 78
(2d Cir. 1999) (Firearms found during
warrantless search were not in plain
view).
Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11
(1999) (No crime scene exception to
warrant requirement).
United States v. Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659
(9th Cir. 2000) (Defendant had
reasonable expectation of privacy in
tent on public land).
United States v. Vega, 221 F.3d 789
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 1155 (2000)
(The police cannot create exigency for
search of leased home).
United States v. Reid, 226 F.3d 1020
(9th Cir. 2000) (Guest did not have
apparent authority to allow search of
apartment).
United States v. Lewis, 231 F.3d 238
(6th Cir. 2000) (Absent probable cause,
exigent circumstances did not permit
entry to home).
United States v. Oaxaca, 233 F.3d 1154
(9th Cir. 2000) (Agents could not enter
open door of garage).
United States v. Santa, 236 F.3d 662
(6th Cir. 2001) (Search of apartment
lacked exigent circumstances).
United States v. Gamez-Orduno, 235
F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2000) (Overnight
guests had standing to challenge
search).
United States v. Heath, 259 F.3d 522
(6th Cir. 2001) (Allowing officer to
examine keys was not consent to open
and enter apartment).
United States v. Limares, 269 F.3d 794
(7th Cir. 2001) (Failure to arrest
suspect outside did not create exigency
upon entry to home).
United States v. Diehl, 276 F.3d 32 (1st
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 834 (2002)
(Curtilage need not have obvious
boundary).
United States v. Jones, 286 F.3d 1146
7 Federal Convictions Reversed
(9th Cir. 2002) (Subpoena did not give
authority to illegally enter premises,
even for exigent circumstances).
Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 1271 (2d Cir.
2002) (Police acted without probable
cause or exigent circumstances).
United States v. Gorman, 314 F.3d 1105
(9th Cir. 2002) (No probable cause to
search third-party residence).
United States v. Davis, 332 F.3d 1163
(9th Cir. 2003) (Overnight guest had
expectation of privacy in bag under bed).
United States v. Jones, 335 F.3d 527
(6th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2902
(2007) (Handyman lacked actual or
apparent authority to allow search of
residence).
United States v. Romero-Bustamente,
337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003) (Border
agents did not have authority to search
private real property).
United States v. Hammond, 351 F.3d
765 (6th Cir. 2003) (No evidence of
informant’s reliability for search).
United States v. Carter, 360 F.3d 1235
(10th Cir. 2004) (Protective sweep of
garage was not justified).
Hadley v. Williams, 368 F.3d 747 (7th
Cir. 2004) (False claim of a warrant
voided consent).
United States v. Washington, 387 F.3d
1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (Officers illegally
looked into defendant’s hotel room).
United States v. Chambers, 395 F.3d
563 (6th Cir. 2005) (No emergency
justifying warrantless search).
United States v. Quaempts, 411 F.3d
1046 (9th Cir. 2005) (Opening front door
did not waive expectation of privacy).
United States v. McGough, 412 F.3d
1232 (11th Cir. 2005) (Warrantless
search of apartment was illegal).
United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514
(8th Cir. 2005) (Protective sweep did not
include basement).
United States v. Coles, 437 F.3d 361 (3rd
Cir. 2006) (Officers could not create their
own exigency by attempting to enter
hotel room).
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103
(2006) (Spouse could not consent to search
when homeowner was present and refused).
United States v. Howard, 447 F.3d 1257
(9th Cir. 2006) (Parole condition did not
allow to search home of defendant’s
acquaintance).
United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1388 (2007)
(Defendant did not impliedly consent to
postal inspector entering his home).
United States v. Walker, 474 F.3d 1249
(10th Cir. 2007) (Protective sweep of home
was not incident to arrest).
United States v. Gomez-Moreno, 479 F.3d
350 (5th Cir. 2007) (Government-created
exigent circumstances to search home
voided search and consent).
United States v. Freeman, 479 F.3d 743
(10th Cir. 2007) (No reasonable suspicion to
search parolee’s residence).
United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115 (10th
Cir. 2007) (Guest lacked apparent authority
to allow search of home).
United States v. Ellis, 499 F.3d 686 (7th Cir.
2007) (Movement in home was not an
exigent circumstance justifying warrantless
entry).
United States v. Collins, 510 F.3d 697 (7th
Cir. 2007) (Forcible entry to home lacked
exigent circumstances).
United States v. Troop, 514 F.3d 405 (5th
Cir. 2008) (No evidence that occupants
needed medical assistance to create exigent
circumstances).
United States v. Mowatt, 513 F.3d 395 (4th
Cir. 2008) (No exigent circumstances
justified the officers' demand that defendant
open his apartment door).
United States v. Murphy, 516 F.3d 1117
(9th Cir. 2008) (When a co-tenant objects to
a search and another party with common
authority subsequently gives consent to that
search in the absence of the first co-tenant,
the search is invalid as to the objecting cotenant).
United States v. Castellanos, 518 F.3d 965
(8th Cir. 2008) (Statute permitting
immigration employees to conduct
warrantless searches of persons seeking
admission to the United States did not
permit search of defendant's home during
drug investigation).
United States v. Reeves, 524 F.3d 1161
(10th Cir. 2008) (Unlawful arrest in
hotel room invalidated subsequent
consent to search).
Warrants
United States v. Van Damme, 48 F.3d
461 (9th Cir. 1995) (There was no list of
items to be seized under the warrant).
United States v. Mondragon, 52 F.3d
291 (10th Cir. 1995) (Supplemental
wiretap application failed to show
necessity).
United States v. Kow, 58 F.3d 423 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Warrant failed to identify
business records with particularity, and
good faith exception did not apply).
United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372
(6th Cir. 1996) (Bare bones, boilerplate
affidavit, was insufficient to justify
warrant).
Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 907 (1997)
(Warrant to search two residences did
not authorize the officers to search all
persons present).
United States v. Foster, 104 F.3d 1228
(10th Cir. 1996) (Flagrant disregard for
the specificity of a warrant required
suppression of all found).
United States v. McGrew, 122 F.3d 847
(9th Cir. 1997) (Search warrant
affidavit lacked particularity).
United States v. Alvarez, 127 F.3d 372
(5th Cir. 1997) (Warrant affidavit
contained a false statement made in
reckless disregard for the truth).
United States v. Schroeder, 129 F.3d
439 (8th Cir. 1997) (Warrant did not
authorize a search of adjoining
property).
In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 130
F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 1997) ( Search
warrant was over broad).
United States v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223
(9th Cir. 1998) (Anticipatory search
warrant failed to identify triggering
event for execution).
United States v. Albrektsten, 151 F.3d
951 (9th Cir. 1998) (Arrest warrant did
not permit search of defendant’s motel
room).
8 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1161 (2000)
(Search warrant authorized broader
search than reasonable).
United States v. Herron, 215 F.3d 812
(8th Cir. 2000) (No reasonable officer
would have relied on such a deficient
warrant).
United States v. Tuter, 240 F.3d 1292
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 886
(2001) (Anonymous tip lacked reliability
to support warrant).
United States v. King, 244 F.3d 736 (9th
Cir. 2001) (Officer’s mistaken belief that
ordinance was violated did not provide
reasonable suspicion to stop).
Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir.
2001) (Search warrant for home did not
justify pat-down of owner).
United States v. Blackmon, 273 F.3d
1204 (9th Cir. 2001) (Police may not
borrow information from previous
wiretap warrant in another case).
United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812
(6th Cir. 2003) (Affidavit relying on
confidential informant did not establish
probable cause).
United States v. Deemer, 354 F.3d 1130
(9th Cir. 2004) (No emergency exception
to warrant requirement when search
was not related to 911 call).
United States v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d
1225 (10th Cir. 2005) (Warrant lacked
probable cause and good faith did not
apply).
United States v. Laughton, 409 F.3d 744
(6th Cir. 2005) (Affidavit lacked probable
cause and no good faith exception).
United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480
(6th Cir. 2006) (Warrant was clearly
stale and good faith exception did not
apply).
United States v. Staffeldt, 451 F.3d 578
(9th Cir.), amended, 523 F.3d 983 (2008)
(Wiretap application was facially
deficient).
United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d
518 (6th Cir. 2006) (Possession of drugs
outside home did not support warrant to
search home, nor was there good faith
reliance).
United States v. West, 520 F.3d 604 (6th
Cir. 2008) (Search warrant affidavits
contained false statements).
United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir.
2008) (A substantial showing that a search
warrant affidavit contains falsity requires
an evidentiary hearing).
Defendant’s
Statements
United States v. Dudden, 65 F.3d 1461 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Immunity agreement required a
hearing on whether the defendant’s
statements were used to aid the
government’s case).
United States v. Tenorio, 69 F. 3d 1103
(11th Cir. 1995) (Post-Miranda statements
were improperly admitted).
United States v. Ali, 86 F.3d 275 (2nd Cir.
1996) (Custodial interrogation required
warnings).
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated April 9,
1996, 87 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 1996)
(Custodian of records could not be compelled
to testify as to the location of documents not
in her possession when those documents
incriminated her).
United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019 (2d
Cir. 1997) (Defendant’s statement to
probation officer was inadmissible).
United States v. D.F., 115 F.3d 413 (7th Cir.
1997) (Statements taken from a juvenile in
a mental health facility were involuntary).
United States v. Abdi, 142 F.3d 566 (2d Cir.
1998) (Defendant’s uncounseled statement
was erroneously admitted).
United States v. Garibay, 143 F.3d 534 (9th
Cir. 1998) (Defendant with limited English
and low mental capacity did not voluntarily
waive Miranda).
United States v. Chamberlain, 163 F.3d 499
(8th Cir. 1999) (Inmate under investigation
was entitled to warnings).
United States v. Tyler, 164 F.3d 150 (3rd
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 858 (2002)
(Police did not honor defendant’s invocation
of silence).
Pickens v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 988 (10th Cir.
2000) (Admission of confession was not
harmless).
United States v. Martinez-Gaytan, 213 F.3d
890 (5th Cir. 2000) (Agent who did not
speak Spanish could not introduce
defendant’s Spanish confession).
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S.
428 (2000) (Warnings are required by
Fifth Amendment).
Gardner v. Johnson, 247 F.3d 551 (5th
Cir. 2001) (Psychiatrist’s warnings
about self-incrimination were
insufficient).
United States v. Pedroza, 269 F.3d 821
(7th Cir. 2001) (Agreement to speak to
officer was not consent to later
questioning).
United States v. Velarde-Gomez, 269
F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2001) (Post-arrest.
pre-warning silence cannot be used to
show demeanor).
United States v. Green, 272 F.3d 748
(5th Cir. 2001) (Defendant’s actions in
response to custodial interrogation were
testimonial in nature).
Ghent v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 1121 (9th
Cir. 2002) (Miranda applies to
statements offered at capital
sentencing).
Choi Chun Lam v. Kelchner, 304 F.3d
256 (3d Cir. 2002) (Statements made
under threat of violence were
involuntary).
United States v. San Juan-Cruz, 314
F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2002) (Conflicting
warnings left defendant unclear about
his right to remain silent).
Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003)
(Statement taken after illegal arrest
must be suppressed when there is no
meaningful intervening event).
United States v. Robles-Ortega, 348
F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2003) (Statement
tainted by agents’ illegal entry).
United States v. Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d
839 (9th Cir. 2003) (Spanish warnings
did not advise of right to counsel).
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1038 (2004)
(Confession was involuntary).
Randolf v. California, 380 F.3d 1133
(9th Cir. 2004) (Statement elicited by
informant violated right to counsel
when defendant was represented).
9 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Aguilar, 384 F.3d 520
(8th Cir. 2004) (Statement was a result
of coercion).
Gibbs v. Frank, 387 F.3d 268 (3d Cir.
2004) (Unwarned statements to
psychiatrist were improperly admitted).
Zappulla v. New York, 391 F.3d 462 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 957 (2005)
(Involuntary confession should have
been excluded).
United States v. Wesley, 417 F.3d 612
(6th Cir. 2005) (Defendant’s statement
he went to prison with accomplice was
unfairly prejudicial).
United States v. Magluta, 418 F.3d 1166
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 548 U.S. 903
(2006) (Statements made after
conspiracy ended were inadmissible).
Arnold v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859 (9th
Cir. 2005) (No voluntary waiver after
invocation of silence).
United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148
(9th Cir. 2006) (Inadequate warnings
were given).
United States v. Lopez, 437 F.3d 1059
(10th Cir. 2006) (Both of defendant’s
statements were involuntary).
United States v. Chen, 439 F.3d 1037
(9th Cir. 2006) (Immigration agent was
required to warn alien of rights before
questioning).
United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135
(8th Cir. 2006) (Warnings given after
initial statement were deficient).
United States v. Brownlee, 454 F.3d 131
(3rd Cir. 2006) (Questioning of
defendant in patrol car required
warnings).
United States v. Brathwaite, 458 F.3d
376 (5th Cir. 2006) (No public safety
exception for interrogation about
firearms in home).
United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458
F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2006) (Statements
were result of illegal arrest).
United States v. Shaw, 464 F.3d 615
(6th Cir. 2006) (Statements made after
illegal arrest were tainted).
United States v. Lafferty, 503 F.3d 293
(3rd Cir. 2007) (Defendant who invoked
silence should not have been
interrogated with alleged accomplice and
neither person’s statements were
admissible).
United States v. Revels, 510 F.3d 1269 (10th
Cir. 2007) (Valid investigatory stop does not
obviate need for verbal warnings).
Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781 (9th Cir.
2008) (Petitioner's statement, "I plead the
Fifth", and officer's response, "Plead the
Fifth? What's that?", was an invocation of
Miranda rights).
United States v. Rodriguez, 518 F.3d 1072
(9th Cir. 2008) (An officer must clarify the
meaning of an ambiguous response to a
Miranda warning before proceeding with
general interrogation).
Recusal
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997)
(Petitioner could get discovery of trial
judge’s bias against him).
United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Judge should have been recused
because the defendant made claims against
family friend of the judge).
United States v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258
(5th Cir. 1999) (Judge should have recused
himself in case where attorney testified
against judge in disciplinary hearing).
United States v. Scarfo, 263 F.3d 80 (3rd
Cir. 2001) (Judge should have recused
himself if he felt prejudiced by news article).
Clemmons v. Wolfe, 377 F.3d 322 (2d Cir.
2004) (Previous actions as state judge
required recusal).
In Re Nettles, 394 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2005)
(Bombing plot involved threat to judge’s
safety).
Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955 (7th
Cir. 2005) (Record indicated judge’s bias
against defendant).
United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764 (2d
Cir. 2007) (District judge's prior dealings
with the government's main cooperating
witness required recusal).
Indictments
United States v. Holmes, 44 F.3d 1150 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Money laundering and
structuring counts based on the same
transaction were multiplicious).
United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361
(4th Cir. 1995) (Multiple payments were
part of the same offense).
United States v. Graham, 60 F.3d 463
(8th Cir. 1995) (Multiplicious to charge
the same false statement made on
different occasions).
United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d
723 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S.
1157 (1996) (Multiple possessions of
child pornography should have been
charged in a single count).
United States v. Cancelliere, 69 F.3d
1116 (11th Cir. 1995) (Court amended
charging language of indictment during
trial).
United States v. Johnson, 130 F.3d
1420 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S.
829 (1998) (Gun possession convictions
for the same firearm were
multiplicious).
United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177
(9th Cir. 1999) (Indictment did not
allege mens rea).
United States v. Nunez, 180 F.3d 227
(5th Cir. 1999) (Indictment failed to
charge an offense).
United States v. Dipentino, 242 F.3d
1090 (9th Cir. 2001) (Trial court
constructively amended indictment).
United States v. Olson, 262 F.3d 795
(8th Cir. 2001) (Bank robbery
indictment failed to allege a taking by
force or intimidation).
United States v. Thompson, 287 F.3d
1244 (10th Cir. 2002) (Indictment
dismissed when improper sealing
caused defendant to innocently destroy
documents necessary to his defense).
United States v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 826
(2006) (Capital indictment requires
allegation of mens rea and one
statutory aggravating factor).
United States v. Savoires, 430 F.3d 376
(6th Cir. 2005) (Indictment charging
both carrying and possessing firearm
was duplicitous).
United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d
274 (5th Cir. 2007) (Four counts of child
pornography were multiplicitous as the
government did not offer proff of more
than a single transaction).
10 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Shellef, 507 F.3d 82 (2d
Cir. 2007) (Tax counts and wire fraud
counts should not have been joined).
United States v. Abu-Shawish, 507 F.3d
550 (7th Cir. 2007) (Indictment did not
allege element that defendant defrauded
the organization which he served as an
agent).
United States v. Zalapa, 509 F.3d 1060
(9th Cir. 2007) (Court must dismiss
multiplicious counts).
Limitation of Actions
United States v. Li, 55 F.3d 325 (7th Cir.
1995) (Statute of limitations ran from
the day of deposit, not the day the
deposit was processed).
United States v. Spector, 55 F.3d 22 (1st
Cir. 1995) (Agreement to waive the
statute of limitations was invalid
because it was not signed by the
government).
United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813 (2d
Cir. 1997) (Statute of limitations barred
the reinstatement of charges that were
dismissed in a plea agreement).
United States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1106
(1998) (Conspiracy charge was barred by
statute of limitations).
United States v. Grimmett, 236 F.3d 452
(8th Cir. 2001) (Statute of limitations
had run since defendant’s withdrawal
from the conspiracy).
United States v. Gunera, 479 F.3d 373
(5th Cir. 2007) (Illegal re-entry case
barred when government was on notice
that defendant had been in U.S. for over
5 years).
Venue
United States v. Miller, 111 F.3d 747
(10th Cir. 1997) (Court refused a jury
instruction on venue in a multi-district
conspiracy case).
United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432,
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1041 (10th Cir.
1997) (Requested instruction on venue
should have been given).
United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1
(1998) (Venue for money laundering was
proper only where offenses were begun,
conducted and completed).
United States v. Brennan, 183 F.3d 139 (2d
Cir. 1999) (Venue for mail fraud permissible
only in districts where proscribed acts
occurred).
United States v. Hernandez, 189 F.3d 785
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1028 (1999)
(Venue was improper for undocumented
alien discovered in one district and tried in
another).
United States v. Williams, 274 F.3d 1079
(6th Cir. 2001) (Sale to government
informant did not bring the conspiracy
within district’s venue).
United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (3d
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. (2002) (Venue
should be decided by jury when challenged
by defendant).
United States v. Pace, 314 F.3d 344 (9th
Cir. 2002) (Essential conduct of wire fraud
did not occur in district).
United States v. Wood, 364 F.3d 704 (6th
Cir. 2004) (Venue for mail fraud is limited to
districts where mail is deposited, passed, or
received).
United States v. Morgan, 393 F.3d 192 (D.C.
Cir. 2004) (Improper venue for receiving
stolen property).
United States v. Strain, 396 F.3d 689 (5th
Cir. 2005) (Harboring a fugitive was tried in
wrong district).
United States v. Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1113 (2006)
(Venue improper when essential conduct did
not occur in district).
Pretrial Procedure
United States v. Ramos, 45 F.3d 1519 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Trial judge wrongly refused
deposition without inquiring about
testimony or its relevance).
United States v. Smith, 55 F.3d 157 (4th
Cir. 1995) (Government’s motion for
dismissal should have been granted).
United States v. Gonzalez, 58 F.3d 459 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Government’s motion for
dismissal should have been granted).
United States v. Young, 86 F.3d 944 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1112 (1998)
(Court improperly denied a hearing on a
motion to compel the government to
immunize a witness).
United States v. Mathurin, 148 F.3d 68
(2d Cir. 1998) (Court improperly denied
hearing on motion to suppress).
United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d
599 (8th Cir. 2003) (District Court
failed to conduct de novo review of
magistrate’s findings when defendant
objected).
United States v. Romeo, 360 F.3d 1248
(10th Cir. 2004) (Court abused
discretion by not granting government’s
motion to dismiss charges).
United States v. Salahuddin, 509 F.3d
858 (7th Cir. 2007) (Court should have
reviewed untimely motion to suppress
when good cause for delay was present).
Severance
United States v. Breinig, 70 F.3d 850
(6th Cir. 1995) (Severance should have
been granted where the codefendant’s
defense included prejudicial character
evidence regarding the defendant).
United States v. Baker, 98 F.3d 330
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1179
(1997) (Evidence admissible against
only one codefendant required
severance).
United States v. Jordan, 112 F.3d 14
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1041
(1998) (Charges should have been
severed when a defendant wanted to
testify regarding one count, but not
others).
United States v. Cobb, 185 F.3d 1193
(11th Cir. 1999) (Court erroneously
denied severance under Bruton).
United States v. McCarter, 316 F.3d
536 (5th Cir. 2002) (Counts for firearm
possession and drug possession should
have been severed).
United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 924
(2005) (Offenses occurring two years
apart should have been severed).
United States v. Tarango, 396 F.3d 666
(5th Cir. 2005) (Defendant should not
have been tried with absent codefendant).
11 Federal Convictions Reversed
Conflicts
United States v. Shorter, 54 F.3d 1248
(7th Cir.), cert. denied. 516 U.S. 896
(1995) (Actual conflict when the
defendant accused counsel of improper
behavior).
United States v. Malpiedi, 62 F.3d 465
(2d Cir. 1995) (Conflict for counsel
representing witness who gave
damaging evidence against his
defendant).
United States v. Jiang, 140 F.3d 124 (2d
Cir. 1998) (Attorney’s potential conflict
required remand for hearing).
United States v. Kliti, 156 F.3d 150 (2d
Cir. 1998) (Court should have held
hearing on defense counsel’s potential
conflict).
Perrillo v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 775 (5th
Cir. 2000) (Actual conflict existed in
successive prosecutions of codefendants).
Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223 (9th
Cir. 2001) (Counsel had actual conflict of
interest).
United States v. Schwarz, 283 F.3d 76
(2d Cir. 2002) (Actual conflict between
counsel and one defendant).
United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 924
(2005) (Court failed to act when conflict
arose during trial).
United States v. Oberoi, 331 F.3d 44 (2d
Cir. 2003) (Federal Public Defender was
entitled to withdraw when conflict
arose).
Harris v. Carter, 337 F.3d 758 (6th Cir.
2003) (Court should have held hearing
about apparent conflict).
United States v. Salado, 339 F.3d 285
(5th Cir. 2003) (Joint representation of
two defendants required hearing).
United States v. Williams, 372 F.3d 96
(2d Cir. 2004) (Counsel who was
connected to charges had actual
conflict).
Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.
2004) (Counsel had an actual conflict).
United States v. Osborne, 402 F.3d 626
(6th Cir. 2005) (Representing codefendants
was actual conflict).
Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2876 (2007)
(Court failed to resolve conflict between
appointed lawyer and client).
United States v. Nicholson, 475 F.3d 241
(4th Cir. 2007) (Lawyer had actual conflict
of interest representing witness who
threatened defendant).
Mental Health
United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286 (4th
Cir. 1995) (Court failed to apply a
reasonable cause standard to competency
hearing).
Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996)
(Court could not require a defendant to
prove his incompetence by a higher
standard than preponderance of evidence).
United States v. Williams, 113 F.3d 1155
(10th Cir. 1997) (Defendant’s actions during
trial warranted a competency hearing).
United States v. Nevarez-Castro, 120 F.3d
190 (9th Cir. 1997) (Court refused to hold a
competency hearing).
United States v. Haywood, 155 F.3d 674
(3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 924 (2001)
(Defendant allegedly restored to competency
required second hearing).
United States v. Ramirez, 304 F.3d 1033
(10th Cir. 2002) (Decision to deny
competency examination was not based on
either of the arguments the government
presented).
United States v. Rinaldi, 351 F.3d 285 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 708 (2007)
(Requirement of in-custody mental exam
was error).
United States v. Ghane, 392 F.3d 317 (8th
Cir. 2004) (No involuntary medication when
only small chance of restored competence).
United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1162 (2007)
(Involuntary medication was not justified).
In Re: Hearn, 418 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2005)
(Defendant made prima facie showing of
retardation without expert).
United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d
1130 (9th Cir. 2005) (Abuse of discretion to
deny continuance of hearing to forcibly
administer anti-psychotic drugs).
United States v. Allen, 449 F.3d 1121
(10th Cir. 2006) (Insanity defense was
improperly prohibited in firearm
possession case).
Privilege
Ralls v. United States, 52 F.3d 223 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Fee information was
inextricably intertwined with privileged
communications).
United States v. Sindel, 53 F.3d 874
(8th Cir. 1995) (Fee information could
not be released without disclosing other
privileged information).
United States v. Gertner, 65 F.3d 963
(1st Cir. 1995) (IRS summons of
attorney was just a pretext to
investigate her client).
In Re Richard Roe Inc., 68 F.3d 38 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Court misapplied the crimefraud
exception).
United States v. Rowe, 96 F.3d 1294
(9th Cir. 1996) (In-house investigation
by attorneys associated with the
defendant/lawyer was covered by the
attorney-client privilege).
United States v. Bauer, 132 F.3d 504
(9th Cir. 1997) (Questioning of
defendant’s bankruptcy attorney
violated attorney-client privilege).
United States v. Glass, 133 F.3d 1356
(10th Cir. 1998) (Defendant’s
psychotherapist-patient privilege was
violated).
Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524
U.S. 399 (1998) (Attorney-client
privilege survives client’s death).
United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 949
(1998) (Statements during plea
discussions were erroneously admitted).
In re Sealed Case, 146 F.3d 881 (D.C.
Cir. 1998) (Documents prepared in
anticipation of litigation were work
product).
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314
(1999) (Guilty plea does not waive
privilege against self incrimination at
sentencing).
In Re Sealed Case, 381 F.3d 1205 (D.C.
Cir. 2004) (Subpoena should not have
issued without weighing
12 Federal Convictions Reversed
psychotherapist privilege).
United States v. Montgomery, 384 F.3d
1050 (9th Cir. 2004) (Evidence violated
marital privilege).
Jeopardy / Estoppel
United States v. Abcasis, 45 F.3d 39 (2d
Cir. 1995) Government was estopped
from convicting a person when its agents
caused that person in good faith to
believe they were acting under
government authority).
United States v. Weems, 49 F.3d 528
(9th Cir. 1995) (Government was
estopped from proving element
previously decided in forfeiture case).
United States v. Sammaripa, 55 F.3d
433 (9th Cir. 1995) (Mistrial was not
justified by manifest necessity).
United States v. McLaurin, 57 F.3d 823
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant could not be
retried for bank robbery after conviction
on the lesser included offense of
larceny).
Rutledge v. United States , 517 U.S. 292
(1996) (Defendant could not be punished
for both a conspiracy and a continuing
criminal enterprise based upon a single
course of conduct).
Venson v. Georgia, 74 F.3d 1140 (11th
Cir. 1996) (Prosecutor’s motion for
mistrial was not supported by manifest
necessity).
United States v. Holloway, 74 F.3d 249
(11th Cir. 1996) (Prosecutor’s promise
not to prosecute, made at a civil
deposition, was the equivalent of use
immunity for a related criminal
proceeding).
United States v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied. 519 U.S. 849 (1996)
(Possession of a firearm and its
ammunition could only yield a single
sentence).
United States v. Garcia, 78 F.3d 1517
(11th Cir. 1996) (Acquittal for knowingly
conspiring barred a second prosecution
for the substantive crime).
Terry v. Potter, 111 F.3d 454 (6th Cir.
1997) (When a defendant was charged in
two alternate manners, and the jury
reached a verdict as to only one, there
was an implied acquittal on the other
offense to which jeopardy barred retrial).
United States v. Stoddard, 111 F.3d 1450
(9th Cir. 1997) (1. Second drug conspiracy
prosecution was barred by double jeopardy;
2. Collateral estoppel barred false statement
conviction, based upon drug ownership for
which defendant had been previously
acquitted).
United States v. Romeo, 114 F.3d 141 (9th
Cir. 1997) (After an acquittal for possession,
an importation charge was barred by
collateral estoppel).
United States v. Turner, 130 F.3d 815 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 909 (1998)
(Prosecution of count, identical to one
previously dismissed, was barred).
United States v. Downer, 143 F.3d 819 (4th
Cir. 1998) (Court’s substitution of conviction
for lesser offense, after reversal, violated Ex
Post Facto Clause and Grand Jury Clause).
United States v. Dunford, 148 F.3d 385 (4th
Cir. 1998) (Convictions for 6 firearms and
ammunition was multiplicious).
United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140 (3rd
Cir. 2000) (Sentences for robbery and armed
robbery violated double jeopardy).
United States v. Kithcart, 218 F.3d 213 (3rd
Cir. 2000) (Government could not relitigate
suppression motion).
United States v. Kramer, 225 F.3d 847 (7th
Cir. 2000) (Defendant was entitled to attack
underlying state child support obligation).
Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38 (2d Cir.
2001) (Jeopardy attaches at unconditional
acceptance of guilty plea).
Wilson v. Czerniak, 355 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir.
2004) (Defendant could not be tried for
aggravated murder after acquittal of simple
murder).
United States v. Ford, 371 F.3d 550 (9th
Cir. 2004) (Acquittal for controlling or
managing a drug facility barred retrial for
using or maintaining same).
United States v. Toribio-Lugo, 376 F.3d 33
(1st Cir. 2004) (Defendant did not consent to
mistrial).
United States v. Rivera, 384 F.3d 49 (3rd
Cir. 2004) (Declaration of mistrial lacked
manifest necessity).
Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880 (9th Cir.
2004) (Acquittal barred retrial on lesser
charge).
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462
(2005) (Mid-trial acquittal precluded
reconsideration later in trial).
United States v. Roy, 408 F.3d 484 (8th
Cir. 2005) (Two assault convictions for
the same conduct in a single trial was
double jeopardy).
United States v. DeCarlo, 434 F.3d 447
(6th Cir. 2006) (Defendant could not be
convicted of interstate travel to, both,
have illicit sexual conduct, and have sex
with a child less than 12).
United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d
421 (8th Cir. 2006) (A single possession
of a firearm cannot yield convictions for
being a felon and a drug user).
United States v. Olmeda, 461 F.3d 271
(2d Cir. 2006) (Charges for possessing
same ammunition in two districts in
same month were double jeopardy).
United States v. Blanton, 476 F.3d 767
(9th Cir. 2007) (Government could not
appeal acquittal in bench trial).
Brazzel v. State of Washington, 491
F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007) (Implied
acquittal of greater offense barred
second prosecution for double jeopardy).
United States v. Ohayon, 483 F.3d 1281
(11th Cir. 2007) (Defendant's acquittal
on a charge of an attempted drug
offense collaterally estopped
government from retrying defendant for
conspiracy).
United States v. Lara-Ramirez, 519
F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008) (Absent
defendant’s consent or manifest
necessity, mistrial barred a new trial
under principles of double jeopardy).
United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d
940 (9th Cir. 2008) (Possessing child
pornography is a lesser included crime
within reciept for double jeopardy).
Plea Agreements
United States v. Washman, 66 F.3d 210
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant could have
withdrawn his plea up until the time
the court accepted the plea agreement).
United States v. Levay, 76 F.3d 671
(5th Cir. 1996) (Defendant could not be
enhanced with a prior drug conviction
13 Federal Convictions Reversed
when the government withdrew notice
as part of a plea agreement).
United States v. Dean, 87 F.3d 1212
(11th Cir. 1996) (Judge could modify the
forfeiture provisions of a plea
agreement, when the forfeiture was
unfairly punitive).
United States v. Belt, 89 F.3d 710 (10th
Cir. 1996) (Failure to object to the
government’s breach of the plea
agreement was not a waiver).
United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 122
F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 1997) (Defendant
could attack illegal conviction without
fear that dismissed charges in plea
agreement would be revived).
United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d
832 (5th Cir. 1999) (Government failed
to prove defendant violated
transactional immunity agreement).
United States v. Nathan, 188 F.3d 190
(3rd Cir. 1999) (Statement made after
plea agreement was not stipulation).
United States v. Frazier, 213 F.3d 409
(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1015
(2000) (Government cannot unilaterally
retreat from plea agreement without
hearing).
United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221
(3rd Cir.2000) (Plea agreement
prevented use of information at any
proceeding).
United States v. Randolph, 230 F.3d 243
(6th Cir. 2000) (Prosecution in second
jurisdiction violated plea agreement).
United States v. Fitch, 282 F.3d 364 (6th
Cir. 2002) (A material ambiguity should
have been construed to defendant’s
benefit).
United States v. Reyes, 313 F.3d 1152
(9th Cir. 2002) (Court can only accept or
reject a binding plea agreement, not
modify it).
United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641
(7th Cir. 2004) (There was a mutual
misunderstanding of the agreement).
United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d
1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (Conviction was
barred by plea agreement).
United States v. Floyd, 428 F.3d 513
(3rd Cir. 2005) (Government cannot
refuse to consider cooperation merely
because a charge bargain was more
favorable to defendant than anticipated).
United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453 (4th
Cir. 2006) (Judge impermissibly
participated in plea negotiations).
United States v. Mink, 476 F.3d 558 (8th
Cir. 2007) (Waivers in plea agreement are
strictly construed in defendant’s favor).
United States v. Newbert, 504 F.3d 180 (1st
Cir. 2007) (Motion for new trial based upon
actual innocence did not breach plea
agreement).
United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (4th
Cir. 2007) (Plea agreement barred
defendant’s subsequent prosecution on
related conduct).
Guilty Pleas
United States v. Maddox, 48 F.3d 555 (D.C.
1995) (A summary rejection of a guilty plea
was improper).
United States v. Ribas-Dominicce, 50 F.3d
76 (1st Cir. 1995) (Court misstated the
mental state required for the offense).
United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir.
1995) (Court failed to admonish the
defendant about the mandatory minimum
punishment).
United States v. Casallas, 59 F.3d 1173
(11th Cir. 1995) (Trial judge improperly
became involved in plea bargaining during
colloquy).
United States v. Smith, 60 F.3d 595 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Court failed to explain the
nature of the charges to the defendant).
United States v. Gray, 63 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.
1995) (Defendant who did not understand
the applicability of the mandatory minimum
could withdraw his plea).
United States v. Daigle, 63 F.3d 346 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Court improperly engaged in
plea bargaining).
United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d
719 (1st Cir. 1995) (Court failed to inquire
whether the plea was voluntary or whether
the defendant had been threatened or
coerced).
United States v. Showerman, 68 F.3d 1524
(2d Cir. 1995) (Court failed to advise the
defendant that he might be ordered to pay
restitution).
United States v. Tunning, 69 F.3d 107
(6th Cir. 1995) (Government failed to
recite evidence to prove allegations in
an Alford plea).
United States v. Guerra, 94 F.3d 989
(5th Cir. 1996) (Plea was vacated when
the court gave the defendant erroneous
advice about enhancements).
United States v. Cruz-Rojas, 101 F.3d
283 (2d Cir. 1996) (Guilty pleas were
vacated to determine whether factual
basis existed for carrying a firearm).
United States v. Siegel, 102 F.3d 477
(11th Cir. 1996) (Failure to advise the
defendant of the maximum and
minimum mandatory sentences
required that the defendant be allowed
to withdraw his plea).
United States v. Shepherd, 102 F.3d
558 (DC Cir. 1996) (Court abused its
discretion in rejecting the defendant’s
mid-trial guilty plea).
United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 806 (1997)
(Court failed to admonish the defendant
on the mandatory minimum).
United States v. Amaya, 111 F.3d 386
(5th Cir. 1997) (Defendant’s plea was
involuntary when the court promised to
ensure a downward departure for
cooperation).
United States v. Gonzalez, 113 F.3d
1026 (9th Cir. 1997) (Court should have
held a hearing when the defendant
claimed his plea was coerced).
United States v. Brown, 117 F.3d 471
(11th Cir. 1997) (Misinformation given
to the defendant made his plea
involuntary).
United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153
(11th Cir. 1997) (Plea was involuntary
when defendant mistakenly believed he
had preserved an appellate issue).
United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241
(9th Cir. 1997) (Plea to drug conspiracy
was not an admission of an alleged
overt act).
United States v. Toothman, 137 F.3d
1393 (9th Cir. 1998) (Plea could be
withdrawn based upon misinformation
about guideline range).
United States v. Gobert, 139 F.3d 436
(5th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient factual
14 Federal Convictions Reversed
basis existed for defendant’s guilty plea).
United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193
(10th Cir. 1998) (Failure to admonish
defendant of elements of offense and
possible penalties rendered plea
involuntary).
United States v. Thorne, 153 F.3d 130
(4th Cir. 1998) (Court failed to advise
defendant of the nature of supervised
release).
United States v. Suarez, 155 F.3d 521
(5th Cir. 1998) (Defendant was not
admonished as to nature of charges).
United States v. Andrades, 169 F.3d 131
(2d Cir. 1999) (Court failed to determine
whether defendant understood basis for
plea, and failed to receive sufficient
factual basis).
United States v. Gomez-Orozco, 188
F.3d 422 (7th Cir. 1999) (Proof of
citizenship required withdrawal of guilty
plea to illegal re-entry charge).
United States v. Blackwell, 199 F.3d 623
(2d Cir.1999) (Omissions during colloquy
voided plea).
United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143
(9th Cir. 2000) (Record did not support
guilty plea to firearm charge).
United States v. James, 210 F.3d 1342
(11th Cir. 2000) (Plea colloquy did not
cover elements of offense).
United States v. Santo, 225 F.3d 92 (1st
Cir. 2000) (Court understated
mandatory minimum at plea).
United States v. Castro-Gomez, 233 F.3d
684 (1st Cir. 2000) (Court did not inform
defendant he was subject to mandatory
life sentence).
United States v. Markin, 263 F.3d 491
(6th Cir. 2001) (Judge could not
participate in negotiations once guilty
plea is entered).
United States v. Lujano-Perez, 274 F.3d
219 (5th Cir. 2001) (Court must explain
nature of the charges).
United States v. Stubbs, 281 F.3d 109
(3d Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1028
(2002) (Waiver of counsel was
insufficient).
United States v. Yu, 285 F.3d 192 (2d
Cir. 2002) (Allocution must settle drug
quantity to satisfy Apprendi).
United States v. Pena, 314 F.3d 1152 (9th
Cir. 2003) (Court failed to explain nature of
charges).
United States v. Villalobos, 333 F.3d 1070
(9th Cir. 2003) (Failure to admonish
defendant of drug quantity establishing
statutory maximum rendered plea
involuntary).
United States v. Chavez-Salais, 337 F.3d
1170 (10th Cir. 2003) (Plea colloquy did not
waive possibility of later modification of
sentence for extraordinary circumstances).
United States v. Head, 340 F. 3d 628 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1082 (2006)
(Defendant must be allowed to withdraw
guilty plea before plea is accepted by court).
Waucaush v. United States, 380 F.3d 251
(6th Cir. 2004) (Defendant’s
misunderstanding of law made plea
involuntary).
United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641 (4th
Cir. 2004) (Court should not have accepted
conditional plea when issue for appeal was
not dispositive).
United States v. Amaya-Portillo, 423 F.3d
427 (4th Cir. 2005) (Court failed to
determine if defendant was fit to plead
guilty).
United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802 (9th
Cir. 2005) (Lawyer’s misrepresentation of
potential sentence was just reason to
withdraw plea).
United States v. Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d
1258 (9th Cir. 2005) (Court failed to
determine factual basis for plea).
Hanson v. Phillips, 442 F.3d 789 (2d
Cir. 2006) (Colloquy failed to show plea was
voluntary or upon advice of counsel).
United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652
(4th Cir. 2007) (Plea to drug conspiracy
lacked factual basis).
United States v. Sura, 511 F.3d 654 (7th
Cir. 2007) (Judge was required to admonish
defendant of appeal waiver).
Timely Prosecution
United States v. Verderame, 51 F.3d 249
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 954 (1995)
(Trial court denied repeated, unopposed
motions for continuance in drug conspiracy
case, with only 34 days to prepare).
United States v. Jones, 56 F.3d 581 (5th
Cir. 1995) Open-ended continuance
violated the Speedy Trial Act).
United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Court denied a one-day
continuance of trial, preventing live
evidence on suppression issue).
United States v. Foxman, 87 F.3d 1220
(11th Cir. 1996) (Trial court was
required to decide whether the
government had delayed indictment to
gain a tactical advantage).
United States v. Johnson, 120 F.3d
1107 (10th Cir. 1997) (Continuance
because of court conflict violated
Speedy Trial Act).
United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263
(9th Cir. 1997) (112-day continuance
was not justified).
United States v. Hay, 122 F.3d 1233
(9th Cir. 1997) (48-day recess for jurors’
vacations was abuse of discretion).
United States v. Graham, 128 F.3d 372
(6th Cir. 1997) (Eight-year delay
between indictment and trial violated
the Sixth Amendment).
United States v. Gonzales, 137 F.3d
1431 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Ends of justice”
continuance could not be retroactive).
United States v. Barnes, 159 F.3d 4 (1st
Cir. 1999) (Open-ended continuance
violated speedy trial).
United States v. Hall, 181 F.3d 1057
(9th Cir. 1999) (Continuances for codefendants
violated Speedy Trial Act).
United States v. Moss, 217 F.3d 426
(6th Cir. 2000) (Unnecessary delay
while motion was pending required
dismissal with prejudice).
United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213
F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2000) (Failure to
make “ends of justice” findings for
speedy trial exclusion).
United States v. Hardeman, 249 F.3d
826 (9th Cir. 2001) (Delay to arraign codefendant
violated speedy trial).
United States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998
(9th Cir. 2001) (Court did not explain
denial of continuance when defendant
asked for new counsel).
United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968
15 Federal Convictions Reversed
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120
(2002) (Four-day mid-trial continuance
for co-defendant’s medical condition
violated defendant’s rights).
United States v. Bergfeld, 280 F.3d 486
(5th Cir. 2002) (Five-year government
delay in filing prosecution justified
presumption of prejudice).
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607
(2003) (Extending a statute of
limitations to include previously timebarred
cases violates the Ex Post Facto
Clause).
United States v. Ingram, 446 F.3d 1332
(11th Cir. 2006) (Two-year delay violated
Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial).
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489
(2006) (A prospective waiver of the
Speedy Trial Act is ineffective).
United States v. Stephens, 489 F.3d 647
(5th Cir. 2007) (Neither a codefendant's
guilty plea nor defendant's own
severance motion rendered time
excludable from the speedy trial clock).
United States v. Garner, 507 F.3d 399
(6th Cir. 2007) (Continuance should
have been granted to allow defendant to
investigate late discovery).
United States v. Lopez-Valenzuela, 511
F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2007) (Speedy trial
clock begins at initial appearance or
from filing of information or indictment,
whichever is later).
United States v. Williams, 511 F.3d 1044
(10th Cir. 2007) (Court could not make
retroactive ends-of-justice exclusion to
speedy trial).
United States v. Grenier, 513 F.3d 632
(6th Cir. 2008) (False statements charge
exceeded statute of limitations).
United States v. Mendoza, 530 F.3d 758
(9th Cir. 2008) (Defendant's Sixth
Amendment right to speedy trial was
violated by ten-year delay between
indictment and trial caused by
government neglect).
United States v. Mendoza, 530 F.3d 758
(9th Cir. 2008) (Ten-year delay between
indictment and trial violated Sixth
Amendment speedy trial).
United States v. Young, 528 F.3d 1294
(11th Cir. 2008) (Filing superseding
indictment for an additional charge did
not reset speedy trial clock ).
Jury Selection
Cochran v. Herring, 43 F.3d 1404 (11th
Cir.), modified, 61 F.3d 20, cert. denied, 516
U.S. 1073 (1996) (Batson claim should have
been granted).
United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Selection procedure resulted in
an under-representation of minorities in
jury pool).
United States v. Beckner, 69 F.3d 1290 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Defendant established
prejudicial pretrial publicity that could not
be cured by voir dire).
United States v. Annigoni, 96 F.3d 1132
(9th Cir. 1996) (Court’s erroneous denial of a
defendant’s proper peremptory challenge
required automatic reversal).
Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235 (2d Cir.
1998) (Race-based peremptory challenges
were not subject to harmless error review).
United States v. Ovalle, 136 F.3d 1092 (6th
Cir. 1998) (Plan which resulted in removal
of 1 in 5 blacks from panel, violated Jury
Selection and Service Act).
United States v. Tucker, 137 F.3d 1016 (8th
Cir. 1998) (Evidence of juror bias and
misconduct required evidentiary hearing).
Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392 (1998)
(White defendant could challenge
discrimination against black grand jurors).
United States v. Blotcher, 142 F.3d 728 (4th
Cir. 1998) (Court improperly denied
defendant’s race neutral peremptory
challenge).
Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033 (1998) (Juror’s
lies raised presumption of bias).
United States v. Herndon, 156 F.3d 629 (6th
Cir. 1998) (Denial of hearing on potentially
biased juror).
United States v. McFerron, 163 F.3d 952
(6th Cir. 1999) (Defendant did not have
burden of persuasion on neutral explanation
for peremptory strike).
United States v. Serino, 163 F.3d 91 (1st
Cir. 1999) (Defendant gave valid neutral
reason for striking juror).
Jordan v. Lefevre, 206 F.3d 196 (2d Cir.
2000) (Merely finding strike of juror
was rational does not determine
whether there was purposeful
discrimination).
United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d
1109 (9th Cir. 2000) (Juror who
equivocated about fairness to sit in drug
case should have been excused).
McClain v. Prunty, 217 F.3d 1209 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Judge must investigate
whether purposeful jury selection
discrimination occurred).
United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 835
(2002) (Defendant cannot be forced to
trade for consent to seat biased juror).
Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1000 (2002)
(Statistical disparities in use of strikes
are prima facie evidence of racial
discrimination).
United States v. Thomas, 320 F.3d 315
(2d Cir. 2003) (Court must make
credibility findings to support striking
minority jurors).
Wilson v. Beard, 426 F.3d 653 (3rd Cir.
2005) (Prosecutor struck all African-
Americans).
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005)
(Prosecutor’s strikes were purposely
discriminatory).
United States v. Rodriguez-Lara, 421
F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2005) (Court abused
discretion by denying court-appointed
expert to show racial disparity of
venire).
White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 581 (2006)
(Juror admitting bias should have been
struck).
Williams v. Runnels, 432 F.3d 1102 (9th
Cir. 2006) (Claim of racial
discrimination was unrefuted).
Kesser v. Cambra, 465 F.3d 351(9th
Cir. 2006) (Prosecutor struck jurors
based on race).
United States v. Littlejohn, 489 F.3d
1335 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Venire were told
not to mentioned family or friends in
law enforcement unless it prevented
them from being fair).
United States v. Odeneal, 517 F.3d 406
16 Federal Convictions Reversed
(6th Cir. 2008) (Prosecutor's race-neutral
reasons for exercising peremptory strike
against African-American prospective
juror were pretext for race
discrimination).
Snyder v. Louisiana, 128 S.Ct. 1203
(Prosecutor's proffered reasons for
striking black prospective juror were
pretext for racial discrimination).
Closure
United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Court summarily denied a
defendant’s request to close the trial for
his safety).
Okonkwo v. Lacy, 104 F.3d 21 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 524 U.S. 958 (1998) (Record
did not support closure of proceedings
during testimony of undercover officer).
Pearson v. James, 105 F.3d 828 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 524 U.S. 958 (1998)
(Closure of courtroom denied the right to
a public trial).
Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.
2001) (Total closure of courtroom
violated right to public trial).
United States v. Alcantara, 396 F.3d 189
(2d Cir. 2005) (Closure lacked notice to
public and sufficient findings on the
record).
United States v. Thunder, 438 F.3d 866
(8th Cir. 2006) (Closure of courtroom
denied public trial).
Jury Trial
United States v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423
(10th Cir.), cert. denied. 516 U.S. 844
(1995) (No evidence that the defendant
intelligently and voluntarily waived a
jury trial).
United States v. Ajmal, 67 F.3d 12 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Jurors should not question
witnesses as a matter of course).
United States v. Duarte-Higarenda, 113
F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (Court failed to
question a non-English speaking
defendant over a jury waiver).
United States v. Iribe-Perez, 129 F.3d
1167 (10th Cir. 1997) (Jury was
erroneously told that the defendant
would plead guilty before start of trial).
United States v. Saenz, 134 F.3d 697 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Court’s questioning of a witness
gave appearance of partiality).
United States v. Tilghman, 134 F.3d 414
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (Court’s questioning of
defendant denied him a fair trial).
United States v. Mortimer, 161 F.3d 240
(3rd Cir. 1998) (Trial judge was absent
during defense closing).
United States v. Weston, 206 F.3d 9 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) (Use of anti-psychotic medication
was not supported by evidence of danger to
defendant or others).
United States v. Gomez-Lepe, 207 F.3d 623
(9th Cir. 2000) (Magistrate Judge could not
preside over polling jury in felony case).
United States v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297
(11th Cir. 2002) (Defendant was forced to
wear “stun belt” during trial).
Miller v. Dormire, 310 F.3d 600 (8th Cir.
2002) (Defendant did not waive right to jury
trial).
United States v. Curbelo, 343 F.3d 273 (4th
Cir. 2003) (Court may not proceed with
eleven jurors over defendant’s objection).
Ruimveld v. Birkett, 404 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir.
2005) (Defendant was shackled during trial).
Wisehart v. Davis, 408 F.3d 321 (7th Cir.
2005) (Hearing was needed to determine
bias of juror who knew Defendant took
polygraph).
United States v. Nickl, 427 F.3d 1286 (10th
Cir. 2005) (Judge’s comments were the
equivalent of testimony for government).
Bradley v. Harris, 428 F.3d 811 (9th Cir.),
amended, 518 F.3d 657 (2008) (Defendant
improperly excluded from in camera
conference).
United States v. Bailon-Santana, 429 F.3d
1258 (9th Cir. 2005) (Court must directly
question Spanish-speaking defendant about
jury waiver).
United States v. Robinson, 430 F.3d 537 (2d
Cir. 2005) (Court had discretion to grant
new trial when witness identifying
defendant had been impeached).
United States v. Nunez, 432 F.3d 573 (4th
Cir. 2005) (Court abused discretion by
allowing government to reopen after
summation).
United States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190
(2d Cir. 2006) (Court failed to conduct
post-trial hearing on juror bias
discovered during trial).
Lyell v. Renico, 470 F.3d 1177 (6th Cir.
2006) (Judge’s abuse and insults to
defense counsel denied due process).
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270
(2007) (Placing sentence-elevating
factfinding within the judge's province,
violates a defendant's right to trial by
jury).
United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d
130 (2d Cir. 2007) (There was no
manifest necessity for mistrial and
defendant did not consent).
United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d 851
(7th Cir. 2007) (Co-defendant’s
courtroom disruption prejudiced trial).
United States v. Rojas, 520 F.3d 876
(8th Cir. 2008) (When victim recanted,
trial court should have held hearing on
motion for new trial).
Confrontation
United States v. Hamilton, 46 F.3d 271
(3rd Cir. 1995) (Prosecution witnesses
were not unavailable when they could
have testified under government
immunity).
United States v. Lachman, 48 F.3d 586
(1st Cir. 1995) (Government exhibits
were properly excluded on grounds of
confusion and waste).
United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869
(2d Cir. 1995) (A statement,
inconsistent with the testimony of a
government witness, should have been
admitted).
United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52
(2d Cir. 1995) (Agent improperly
commented on the credibility of another
witness).
United States v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928
(9th Cir. 1997) (Missing witness’s selfincriminating
statement should have
been admitted).
United States v. Lis, 120 F.3d 28 (4th
Cir. 1997) (Ledger connecting another
to the crime was not hearsay).
United States v. Beydler, 120 F. 3d 985
(9th Cir. 1997) (Unavailable witness’s
17 Federal Convictions Reversed
statement, incriminating the defendant,
was inadmissible hearsay).
United States v. Foster, 128 F.3d 949
(6th Cir. 1997) (Exculpatory grand jury
testimony should have been admitted at
trial).
United States v. Williams, 133 F.3d 1048
(7th Cir. 1998) (Statements by informant
to agent were hearsay).
United States v. Lowery, 135 F.3d 957
(5th Cir. 1998) (Court erroneously
excluded defendant’s evidence that he
encouraged witnesses to tell the truth).
United States v. Moses, 137 F.3d 894
(6th Cir. 1998) (Allowing child-witness to
testify by video violated right to
confrontation).
United States v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229
(9th Cir. 1998) (Admission of complaints
by defendant’s customers denied
confrontation).
United States v. Mitchell, 145 F.3d 572
(3rd Cir. 1998) (Anonymous note
incriminating defendant was
inadmissible hearsay).
United States v. Cunningham, 145 F.3d
1385 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S.
1059 (1998) (Unredacted tapes violated
confrontation).
United States v. Sanchez-Lima, 161 F.3d
545 (9th Cir. 1999) (Exclusion of
deposition denied right to put on
defense).
United States v. Saenz, 179 F.3d 686
(9th Cir. 1999) (Defendant was entitled
to show his knowledge of victim’s prior
acts of violence to support self-defense).
United States v. Torres-Ortega, 184 F.3d
1128 (10th Cir. 1999) (Admission of
grand jury testimony violated
confrontation).
United States v. Samaniego, 187 F.3d
1222 (10th Cir. 1999) (There was no
foundation for admission of business
records).
United States v. Sumner, 204 F.3d 1182
(8th Cir. 2000) (Child’s statement to
psychologist was hearsay).
United States v. Byrd, 208 F.3d 592 (7th
Cir. 2000) (Defendant was prevented
from introducing shackles and restraints
in which he was held during alleged
assault on officers).
LaJoie v. Thompson, 217 F.3d 663 (9th Cir.
2000) (Notice requirement of rape shield law
violated right of confrontation).
United States v. Rhynes, 218 F.3d 310 (4th
Cir. 2000) (Sequestered defense witness
should not have been excluded for violating
rule).
Schaal v. Gammon, 233 F.3d 1103 (8th Cir.
2000) (Admission of videotape of victim’s
statements violated confrontation).
Agnew v. Leibach, 250 F.3d 1308 (7th Cir.
2001) (Bailiff was improperly called to
testify about defendant’s confession).
United States v. Wells, 262 F.3d 455 (5th
Cir. 2001) (Witness could not testify to
contents of destroyed business records).
Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629 (6th Cir.
2001) (Videotape should not have been
admitted without showing witness was
unavailable).
Cook v. McKune, 323 F.3d 825 (10th Cir.
2003) (State did not make reasonable effort
to locate key witness).
McKenzie v. Smith, 326 F.3d 721 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1158 (2005)
(Uncorroborated hearsay did not support
conviction).
United States v. Lopez, 340 F.3d 169 (3d
Cir. 2003) (Conviction based upon
inadmissible hearsay).
United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st
Cir.), clarified 359 F.3d 627, cert. denied,
541 U.S. 1069 (2004) (Drug conviction based
upon inadmissible hearsay from agent).
United States v. Turning Bear, 357 F.3d 730
(8th Cir. 2004) (Testimony via closed circuit
television violated confrontation).
Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 544 U.S. 919 (2005) (Court
improperly used hearsay rule to exclude
defendant’s evidence).
United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018 (7th
Cir. 2004) (Conviction was based on
hearsay).
Fischetti v. Johnson, 384 F.3d 140 (3rd Cir.
2004) (No showing that witnesses were
unavailable).
United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662 (6th
Cir. 2004) (Statements by unavailable
witness denied confrontation).
United States v. Rodriguez-Marrero,
390 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 544
U.S. 912 (2005) (Admitting confession of
absent declarant violated
confrontation).
United States v. Gilbert, 391 F.3d 882
(7th Cir. 2004) (Admission of
statements by unavailable witness
violated confrontation).
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36
(2004) (Admission of testimonial
statement, that was not subject to
cross-examination, violates
confrontation).
United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071
(8th Cir. 2005) (Testimony of
physician’s assistant was inadmissible
hearsay).
United States v. Bordeaux, 400F.3d 548
(8th Cir. 2005) (Defendant denied
ability to confront sexual abuse
accuser).
Murillo v. Frank, 402 F.3d 786 (7th Cir.
2005) (Murder conviction based upon
hearsay).
United States v. Vega-Molina, 407 F.3d
511 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 919
(2005) (Court should have given
limiting instruction on co-defendant’s
confession).
Madrigal v. Bagley, 413 F.3d 548 (6th
Cir. 2005) (Admission of accomplice’s
confession violated confrontation).
United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307
(11th Cir. 2006) (Two-way video
testimony denied confrontation).
Fulcher v. Motley, 444 F.3d 791 (6th
Cir. 2006) (Admission of wife’s
statements violated confrontation).
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813
(2006) (Witness affidavit was
testimonial evidence and violated
confrontation).
United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555
(5th Cir. 2006) (Defendant was not
allowed to cross-examine officer about
location during surviellance).
Vasquez v. Jones, 496 F.3d 564 (6th Cir.
2007) (Confrontation requires ability to
impeach witness with prior
convictions).
18 Federal Convictions Reversed
Winzer v. Hall, 494 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir.
2007) (Officer’s hearsay testimony
violated Confrontation).
United States v. Yida, 498 F.3d 945 (9th
Cir. 2007) (Government was barred from
admitting former testimony of a witness
it deported without deposition).
United States v. Hearn, 500 F.3d 479
(6th Cir. 2007) (Introduction of
confidential informant’s statement
denied Confrontation).
United States v. Becker, 502 F.3d 122
(2d Cir. 2007) (Introduction of codefendants’
plea allocutions violated
Confrontation).
United States v. Bercier, 506 F.3d 625
(8th Cir. 2007) (Doctor’s testimony about
what victim said violated
Confrontation).
United States v. Conrad, 507 F.3d 424
(6th Cir. 2007) (Court failed to find
hearsay statement was made in
furtherance of conspiracy).
United States v. Alvarado-Valdez, 521
F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (Admission of
co-defendant’s statement made during
police interrogation violated
confrontation).
Impeachment
United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Court refused to allow
government witness to be questioned
about jeopardy from same charges).
United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509 (4th
Cir. 1995) (Prior consistent statements
were not admissible because they were
made prior to the witness having a
motive to fabricate).
United States v. Tory, 52 F.3d 207 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Witness’ statement that the
robber wore sweat pants was
inconsistent with prior statement that
he wore white pants).
United States v. Rivera, 61 F.3d 131 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1132 (1997)
(Court should not have admitted an
attached factual stipulation when
allowing defendant to impeach a witness
with a plea agreement).
United States v. Blum, 62 F.3d 63 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Court excluded evidence
relevant to the witness’ motive to
testify).
United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806 (10th
Cir. 1995) (Court excluded cross
examination of a sexual assault victim’s
relationship with a third party).
United States v. Landerman, 109 F.3d 1053
(5th Cir.), modified, 116 F.3d 119, cert.
denied, 522 U.S. 1033 (1997) (The defendant
should have been allowed to question a
witness about a pending state charge).
United States v. Mulinelli-Nava, 111 F.3d
983 (1st Cir. 1997) (Court limited cross
examination regarding theory of defense).
United States v. James, 169 F.3d 1210 (9th
Cir. 1999) (Records of victim’s violence were
relevant to self-defense).
Schledwitz v. United States, 169 F.3d 1003
(6th Cir. 1999) (Defendant could expose bias
of witness involved in investigation).
United States v. Manske, 186 F.3d 770 (7th
Cir. 1999) (Defendant could cross-examine
witness about his threats to other witnesses
about their testimony).
United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512
(8th Cir. 2000) (Limiting defense cross
violated confrontation).
United States v. Doherty, 233 F.3d 1275
(11th Cir. 2000) (Court should have
admitted evidence of agent’s threat against
defense witness).
Wilkerson v. Cain, 233 F.3d 886 (5th Cir.
2000) (Limit on questioning eye witness
violated confrontation).
Redmond v. Kingston, 240 F.3d 590 (7th Cir.
2001) (Defendant was prohibited from cross
examining rape victim about prior false
claim).
United States v. Howell, 285 F.3d 1263
(10th Cir. 2002) (Court barred introduction
of witnesses’ prior felonies without first
finding prejudice).
United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606
(9th Cir. 2002) (Restricting crossexamination
of key witness was error).
United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210 (3d
Cir. 2003) (Court unduly limited defendant’s
right of cross-examination).
United States v. Love, 329 F.3d 981 (8th
Cir. 2003) (Court improperly limited crossexamination
of witness about his mental
illness and lack of memory).
Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.
2003) (Defendant was prevented from
cross-examining the only eye witness).
Ortega v.Duncan, 333 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.
2003) (Perjured testimony required new
trial).
United States v. Buffalo, 358 F.3d 519
(8th Cir. 2004) (Defendant was
prevented from calling impeachment
witnesses).
United States v. Stephens, 365 F.3d 967
(11th Cir. 2004) (Defendant was
prevented from calling witnesses that
undermined government’s case).
United States v. Wilmore, 381 F.3d 868
(9th Cir. 2004) (Court restricted cross of
government witness).
United States v. Schoneberg, 396 F.3d
1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (Court prevented
lawyer from cross-examining witness).
Howard v. Walker, 406 F.3d 114 (2d
Cir. 2005) (Court limited defense cross
of expert).
Co-Defendant’s
Statements
United States v. Montilla-Rivera, 115
F.3d 1060 (1st Cir. 1997) (Exculpatory
affidavits of co-defendants, who claimed
Fifth Amendment privilege, were newly
discovered evidence regarding a motion
for new trial).
United States v. Glass, 128 F.3d 1398
(10th Cir. 1997) (Introduction of a codefendant’s
incriminating statement
violated Bruton).
United States v. Peterson, 140 F.3d 819
(9th Cir. 1998) (Bruton violation
occurred).
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998)
(Bruton prohibited redacted confession,
which obviously referred to defendant).
Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (1999)
(Admission of accomplice confession
denied confrontation).
United States v. McCleskey, 228 F.3d
640 (6th Cir. 2000) (Admission of nontestifying
co-defendant’s statement
denied confrontation).
United States v. Reynolds, 268 F.3d 572
19 Federal Convictions Reversed
(8th Cir. 2001) (Evidence against codefendant
was inadmissible when he
admitted underlying crime).
Stapleton v. Wolfe, 288 F.3d 863 (6th
Cir. 2002) (Accomplice statements had
no indicia of reliability).
Hill v. Hofbauer, 337 F.3d 706 (6th Cir.
2003) (Co-defendant’s statement
establishing defendant’s malice should
have been excluded).
Ortiz v. Stevens, 465 F.3d 1229 (5th Cir.
2006) (Admission of accomplice’s
confession violated confrontation).
Misconduct
United States v. Flores-Chapa, 48 F.3d
156 (5th Cir. 1995) (Prosecutor referred
to excluded evidence).
United States v. Kallin, 50 F.3d 689 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Prosecutor commented upon
the defendant’s failure to come forward
with an explanation).
United States v. Gaston-Brito, 64 F.3d
11 (1st Cir. 1995) (Hearing was
necessary to determine if an agent
improperly gestured toward defense
table in front of the jury).
United States v. Tenorio, 69 F.3d 1103
(11th Cir. 1995) (Prosecutor commented
upon the defendant’s silence).
United States v. Roberts, 119 F.3d 1006
(1st Cir. 1997) (Prosecutor commented
on defendant’s failure to testify and
misstated burden of proof).
United States v. Rudberg, 122 F.3d 1199
(9th Cir. 1997) (Prosecutor vouched for a
witness’ credibility in closing argument).
United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1152
(1998) (Prosecutor commented on the
defendant’s failure to testify and asked
questions highlighting defendant’s
silence).
United States v. Wilson, 135 F.3d 291
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1143
(1998) (Prosecutor’s argument that
defendant was a murderer prejudiced
drug case).
United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185
(9th Cir. 1998) (Prosecutor coerced
defense witness into refusing to testify).
United States v. Maddox, 156 F.3d 1280
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (Prosecutor’s argument
referred to matters not in evidence).
United States v. Rodrigues, 159 F.3d 439,
amended, 170 F.3d 881 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(Improper closing by prosecutor).
United States v. Richardson, 161 F.3d 728
(D.C. Cir. 1999) ( Improper remarks by
prosecutor).
United States v. Golding, 168 F.3d 700 (4th
Cir. 1999) (Prosecutor threatened defense
witness with prosecution if she testified).
United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546 (6th
Cir. 1999) (Cumulative acts of prosecutorial
misconduct).
Smith v. Groose, 205 F.3d 1045 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 985 (2000)
(Prosecution argued contradictory facts in
two different but related trials).
United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590 (9th
Cir. 2000) ( Repeated references to “Cuban
drug dealers”).
United States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741 (8th
Cir. 2000) (Prosecutor’s questioning violated
prior in limine ruling).
United States v. LaPage, 231 F.3d 488 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Prosecutor used perjured
testimony).
Sandoval v. Calderon, 241 F.3d 765 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 847 (2001)
(Prosecution referred to religious authority
for sentence).
United States v. Adkinson, 247 F.3d 1289
(11th Cir. 2001) (Bad faith inclusion of bank
fraud charge warranted reimbursement of
attorney’s fees).
United States v. Rodriguez, 260 F.3d 416
(5th Cir. 2001) (Prosecutor argued jury
could infer guilt from post-arrest silence).
Killian v. Poole, 282 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1179 (2003) (Reliance
on perjury in argument).
United States v. Conrad, 320 F.3d 851 (8th
Cir. 2003) (Prosecutor’s argument about
purpose of ban on sawed-off shotguns was
prejudicial).
United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054
(9th Cir. 2003) (Government deliberately
interfered with attorney-client relations by
obtaining trial strategy form informant).
United States v. Brown, 327 F.3d 867
(9th Cir. 2003) (Prosecutor improperly
referred to inadmissible prior acts in
closing).
United States v. Rutherford, 371 F.3d
634 (9th Cir. 2004) (IRS conduct may
have intimidated jurors).
United States v. Moore, 375 F.3d 259
(3rd Cir. 2004) (Calling defendant a
terrorist in closing was plain error).
United States v. Earle, 375 F.3d 1159
(D.C. Cir. 2004) (Prosecutor implied
defense acted improperly).
Hayes v. Brown, 399 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.
2005) (Prosecutor knowingly presented
false evidence).
United States v. Holmes, 413 F.3d 770
(8th Cir. 2005) (Prosecutor argued
defendant’s case was “smoke and
mirrors, red herrings”).
Hodge v. Hurley, 426 F.3d 368 (6th Cir.
2005) (Prosecutor made improper
argument).
Ben-Yisrayl v. Davis, 431 F.3d 1043
(7th Cir. 2005) (Prosecutor commented
on defendant’s silence).
Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1159 (2006)
(Evidentiary hearing required for claim
that prosecutor threatened witness).
Weaver v. Bowersox, 438 F.3d 832 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 550 U.S. 598 (2007)
(Prosecutor argued own personal
belief).
United States v. Carpenter, 494 F.3d 13
(1st Cir. 2007) (Prosecutor’s repeated
disparagement of defendant warranted
new trial).
United States v. Azubike, 504 F.3d 30
(1st Cir. 2007) (Prosecutor’s misquoting
of defendant was prejudicial).
United States v. Jenkins, 504 F.3d 694
(9th Cir. 2007) (Prosecuting defendant
for admissions made during trial
reflected unrebutted vindictiveness).
United States v. Caruto, 532 F.3d 822
(9th Cir. 2008) (Prosecutor’s argument
that defendant’s initial statement
contained omissions violated her
subsequent invocation of silence).
20 Federal Convictions Reversed
Extraneous Evidence
United States v. Rodriguez, 45 F.3d 302
(9th Cir. 1995) (Evidence of flight a
month after crime was inadmissible to
prove an intent to possess).
United States v. Blackstone, 56 F.3d
1143 (9th Cir. 1995) (Drug use was
improperly admitted in felon in
possession case).
United States v. Moorehead, 57 F.3d 875
(9th Cir. 1995) (Evidence that the
defendant was a drug dealer should not
have been admitted in firearms case).
United States v. Aguilar-Aranceta, 58
F.3d 796 (1st Cir. 1995) (Prior
misdemeanor drug conviction was more
prejudicial than probative in a
distribution case).
United States v. McDermott, 64 F.3d
1448 (10th Cir. 1995) (Evidence that the
defendant threatened a witness should
not have been admitted because it was
not clear the defendant knew the person
was a witness).
United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66
F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1995) (Evidence of
personal use of methamphetamine at
the time of the defendant’s arrest was
inadmissible).
United States v. Elkins, 70 F.3d 81 (10th
Cir. 1995) (Evidence of the defendant’s
gang membership was improperly
elicited).
United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 903 (1997)
(Court should have excluded testimony
that the defendant was in a motorcycle
gang).
United States v. Utter, 97 F.3d 509
(11th Cir. 1996) (In arson case, it was
error to admit evidence that the
defendant threatened to burn his
tenant’s house or that the defendant’s
previous residence had burned).
United States v. Lecompte, 99 F.3d 274
(8th Cir. 1996) (Evidence of prior contact
with alleged victims did not show plan
or preparation).
United States v. Jobson, 102 F.3d 214
(6th Cir. 1996) (Court failed to
adequately limit evidence of the
defendant’s gang affiliation).
United States v. Murray, 103 F.3d 310 (3rd
Cir. 1997) (Evidence that an alleged
murderer had killed before was improperly
admitted in a CCE case).
United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st
Cir. 1997) (Allowing testimony about
bombing of federal building was prejudicial).
United States v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928 (9th
Cir. 1997) (Evidence that the defendant
previously applied for a loan was
prejudicial).
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172
(1997) (Court abused its discretion by
refusing to accept the defendant’s offer to
stipulate that he was a felon, in a trial for
being a felon in possession of a firearm).
United States v. Sumner, 119 F.3d 658 (8th
Cir. 1997) (When defendant denied the
crime occurred, prior acts to prove intent
were not admissible).
United States v. Millard, 139 F.3d 1200 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 949 (1998) Prior
drug convictions erroneously admitted).
United States v. Mulder, 147 F.3d 703 (8th
Cir. 1998) (Bank’s routine practice was
irrelevant to fraud prosecution).
United States v. Ellis, 147 F.3d 1131 (9th
Cir. 1998) (Testimony about destructive
power of explosives was prejudicial).
United States v. Merino-Balderrama, 146
F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1998) (Pornographic films
should not have been displayed in light of
defendant’s offer to stipulate).
United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950 (D.C.
Cir. 1998) (Letter containing evidence of
prior bad acts should not have been
admitted).
United States v. Polasek, 162 F.3d 878 (5th
Cir. 1999) (Convictions of defendant’s
associates should not have been admitted).
United States v. Jean-Baptiste, 166 F.3d
102 (2d Cir. 1999) (Admission of prior bad
act was plain error absent evidence it
actually occurred).
United States v. Lawrence, 189 F.3d 838
(9th Cir. 1999) (Testimony regarding
defendant’s marriage was more prejudicial
than probative).
United States v. Heath, 188 F.3d 916 (7th
Cir. 1999) (Previous arrest was not
admissible prior bad act).
United States v. Anderson, 188 F.3d
886 (7th Cir. 1999) (Prior bad act was
more than 10 years old).
United States v. Walton, 217 F.3d 443
(7th Cir. 2000) (Evidence of prior
unsolved theft was irrelevant).
United States v. Jimenez, 214 F.3d
1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (Description of
defendant’s prior conviction involving
firearm was not harmless).
United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d
113 (1st Cir. 2000) (Evidence of
previous fire was more prejudicial than
probative).
United States v. Grimes, 244 F.3d 375
(5th Cir. 2001) (Narratives found on
defendant’s computer should not have
been introduced in child porn case).
United States v. Haywood, 280 F.3d 715
(6th Cir. 2002) (Evidence of previous
possession had no bearing on alleged
sale).
Garceau v. Woodford, 281 F.3d 919 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 848 (1994)
(Jury instruction drew attention to
prior unrelated crimes).
United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928
(6th Cir. 2003) (Evidence that
defendant smoked crack was
improperly admitted in distribution
case).
United States v. Johnson, 388 F.3d 96
(3d Cir. 2004) (Prior theft should not
have been admitted in carjacking
conspiracy).
United States v. Gonzalez-Flores, 418
F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2005) (Evidence that
smuggled aliens suffered heatstroke
was unfairly prejudicial).
United States v. Owens, 424 F.3d 649
(7th Cir. 2005) (Suggestion of prior
bank robbery was error).
United States v. Johnson, 439 F.3d 884
(8th Cir. 2006) (Admission of written
stories of child rape was error in child
pornography case).
United States v. Cunningham, 462 F.3d
708 (7th Cir. 2006) (Basis for wiretaps
improperly bolstered government’s
evidence).
United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935
(9th Cir. 2007) (Government could not
21 Federal Convictions Reversed
selectively excerpt pornographic stories
in defendant’s possession at time of
arrest).
United States v. Simpson, 479 F.3d 492
(7th Cir. 2007) (Evidence of unrelated
drug sales was inadmissible).
United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935
(9th Cir. 2007) (Court should not have
admitted lewd stories written by
defendant without first reading them in
their entirety).
United States v. Bell, 516 F.3d 432 (6th
Cir. 2008) (Defendant’s prior drug
convictions were not admissible as
showing absence of mistake or accident).
Identification
United States v. Emanuele, 51 F.3d
1123 (3rd Cir. 1995) (Identification,
made after seeing the defendant in
court, and after a failure to identify him
before, should have been suppressed).
Lyons v. Johnson, 99 F.3d 499 (2d Cir.
1996) (Court denied the defendant the
right to display a witness in support of a
misidentification defense).
United States v. Montgomery, 100 F.3d
1404 (8th Cir. 1996) (Co-defendants
should have been required to try on
clothing, after defendant had to, when
the government put ownership at issue).
United States v. Rogers, 387 F.3d 925
(7th Cir. 2004) (Suggestive line-up
tainted courtroom identification).
United States v. Pugh, 405 F.3d 390 (6th
Cir. 2005) (Officer could not testify about
what was said at out-of-court
identification).
Expert Testimony
United States v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 1995) (Officer relied upon improper
hypothetical in drug case).
United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126 (1st
Cir. 1995) (Defense expert should have
been allowed to explain that the
defendant had a disorder that caused
him to lie).
United States v. Posado, 57 F.3d 428
(5th Cir. 1995) (Per se rule prohibiting
polygraph evidence was abolished by
Daubert).
United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1098
(1996) (Defense expert should have been
allowed to testify on the defendant’s
inability to form intent).
United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844 (3rd
Cir. 1995) (Defense expert should have been
allowed to testify on the limitations of
handwriting analysis).
Rupe v. Wood, 93 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 1142 (1997) (Exclusion of a
witness’ failed polygraph results denied due
process).
United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir.
1996) (Expert testimony that the defendant
had a disorder that may have caused him to
make a false confession should have been
admitted).
Calderon v. U.S. District Court, 107 F.3d
756 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 907
(1997) (CJA funds for expert could be used
to exhaust a state claim).
United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031
(9th Cir. 1997) (The court should not have
excluded a defense expert on bookkeeping).
Lindh v. Murphy, 124 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1069 (1998)
(Defendant was prevented from examining
the state’s psychiatrist about allegations of
sexual improprieties with patients).
United States v. Word, 129 F.3d 1209 (11th
Cir. 1997) (Lay testimony of abuse to
defendant was admissible).
United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393 (5th
Cir. 1999) (Court improperly refused
instruction on insanity based upon expert
testimony).
United States v. Barnette, 211 F.3d 803 (4th
Cir. 2000) ( Defendant was prevented from
presenting expert to answer government’s
rebuttal expert testimony).
United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306
(6th Cir. 2000) (Court excluded expert on
identification without a hearing).
United States v. Velarde, 214 F.3d 1204
(10th Cir. 2000) (Court failed to make
reliability determination about
government’s expert testimony).
United States v. Henke, 222 F.3d 633 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Lay witness could not testify to
what defendant knew about regulatory
scheme).
United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008,
amended, 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001)
(Exclusion of defense experts regarding
defendant’s ability to communicate in
English).
United States v. Watson, 260 F.3d 301
(3rd Cir. 2001) (Drug agents could not
give opinion about defendant’s intent).
United States v. McGowan, 274 F.3d
1251 (9th Cir. 2001) (Testimony about
nature of drug trafficking organizations
was inadmissible).
United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279
F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (Erroneous
admission of testimony about general
operation of drug trafficking).
United States v. Pineda-Torres, 287
F.3d 860 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 537
U.S. 1066 (2002) (Error to allow expert
testimony on structure of drug
organizations).
United States v. Finley, 301 F.3d 1000
(9th Cir. 2002) (Expert on defendant’s
atypical belief system improperly
excluded).
United States v. Bennett, 363 F.3d 947
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 950
(2004) (Officer’s testimony about global
positioning device violated best
evidence rule).
United States v. Hardin, 437 F.3d 463
(5th Cir. 2006) (Court refused to
appoint drug expert for indigent
defendant).
United States v. Lopez-Medina, 461
F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006) (Agent should
not have been allowed to give expert
testimony without cautionary
instruction).
United States v. Kaplan, 490 F.3d 110
(2d Cir. 2007) (District court erred in
admitting lay opinion testimony
regarding defendant's and other's
knowledge of the fraud).
Ferensic v. Birkett, 501 F.3d 469 (6th
Cir. 2007) (Exclusion of defense expert
for discovery violation denied right to
present a defense).
Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.
2007) (Cumulative error resulted from
erroneous admission of damaging cross
of defense expert).
United States v. Cohen, 510 F.3d 1114
22 Federal Convictions Reversed
(9th Cir. 2007) (Defense psychiatrist
should have been allowed to testify
about personality disorder affecting
defendant’s ability to form intent).
United States v. Hasan, 526 F.3d 653
(10th Cir. 2008) (Defendant should have
been provided interpreter when called to
testify before grand jury).
Entrapment
United States v. Reese, 60 F.3d 660 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Entrapment instruction
failed to tell the jury that the
government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant was
predisposed).
United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515
(5th Cir. 1997) (Evidence supported an
instruction on entrapment).
United States v. Duran, 133 F.3d 1324
(10th Cir. 1998) (Entrapment instruction
failed to place burden on government).
United States v. Thomas, 134 F.3d 975
(9th Cir. 1998) (Defendant may present
good prior conduct to support
entrapment defense).
United States v. Sligh, 142 F.3d 761 (4th
Cir. 1998) (Court failed to give
instruction on entrapment).
United States v. Burt, 143 F.3d 1215
(9th Cir. 1998) (Entrapment instruction
failed to place proper burden on
government).
United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1
(1st Cir. 1998) (Jury should have been
instructed on entrapment).
United States v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d 692
(9th Cir. 2000) ( Defendant was
entrapped as matter of law).
United States v. Brooks, 215 F.3d 842
(8th Cir. 2000) (Drug defendant was
entrapped as matter of law).
Bradley v. Duncan, 315 F.3d 1091 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 963 (2003)
(Refusal to give entrapment instruction
was error).
United States v.Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995
(2003) (Court improperly denied
defendant ability to pursue entrapment
defense).
United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43 (1st Cir.
2007) (Supplemental instructions, which
foreclosed the jury from considering the
defendant's superior's role in the asserted
government entrapment of defendant, were
erroneous).
Defenses
United States v. Tory, 52 F.3d 207 (9th Cir.
1995) (Defense was prevented from arguing
that an absence of evidence implied that
evidence did not exist).
United States v. Ruiz, 59 F.3d 1151 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1133 (1996)
(Defendant has the right to have the jury
instructed on his theory of defense).
United States v. Hall, 77 F.3d 398 (11th Cir.
1996) (Defendant’s counsel was improperly
prohibited from addressing general
principles of reasonable doubt in closing).
United States v. Otis, 127 F.3d 829 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1066 (1998)
(Duress instruction was omitted).
United States v. Benally, 146 F.3d 1232
(10th Cir. 1998) (Defendant was entitled to
instructions on self-defense and lesser
included offense).
United States v. Sanchez-Lima, 161 F.3d
545 (9th Cir. 1999) (Self-defense instruction
should have been given).
United States v. Smith, 217 F.3d 746 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Court failed to instruct upon
defendant’s theory of the case).
United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d
1237 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 992
(2001) (Judge said that defense was a
“smoke screen”).
United States v. Crowley, 236 F.3d 104 (2d
Cir. 2000) (Jury should have been charged
on voluntary intoxication).
United States v. Miguel, 338 F.3d 995 (9th
Cir. 2003) (Defendant was prevented from
arguing theory of the case).
United States v. Chin, 371 F.3d 31(2d Cir.
2004) (Receipts offered in support of alibi
were improperly excluded).
United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794
(9th Cir. 2004) (Court excluded state
judgement that contradicted prosecution
case).
Jackson v. Edwards, 404 F.3d 612 (2d Cir.
2005) (Court refused justification
defense to manslaughter).
United States v. Burt, 410 F.3d 1100
(9th Cir. 2005)(Border agent’s
statements raised public authority
defense).
United States v. Biggs, 441 F.3d 1069
(9th Cir. 2006) (Self defense does not
require showing no reasonable
alternatives).
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 F.3d 319
(2006) (State may not prohibit evidence
that a third party committed offense).
United States v. Veach, 455 F.3d 628
(6th Cir. 2006) (Defendant was entitled
to present defenses of voluntary
intoxication or diminished capacity).
United States v. Moran, 493 F.3d 1002
(9th Cir. 2007) (District court
erroneously excluded one defendant's
testimony as hearsay that would have
comprised a critical element of
defendants' good faith defense).
United States v. Canty, 499 F.3d 729
(7th Cir. 2007) (Failure to give notice of
public authority defense did not justify
barring defendant’s testimony of his
state of mind).
Jury Instructions
Smith v. Singletary, 61 F.3d 815 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1140 (1996)
(Court failed to give mitigating
instruction in a capital case).
United States v. Birbal, 62 F.3d 456
(2nd Cir. 1995) (Jurors were instructed
they “may” acquit, rather than they
“must” acquit, if the government did not
meet its burden).
United States v. Hairston, 64 F.3d 491
(9th Cir. 1995) (Alibi instruction was
required when evidence of alibi was
introduced in the government’s case).
United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386
(5th Cir. 1996) (Jury instructions in a
pollution case implied strict liability
rather than the requirement of
knowledge).
United States v. Rodgers, 109 F.3d 1138
(6th Cir. 1997) (If a court allows a jury
to review trial testimony, there must be
a cautionary instruction not to place
upon it undue emphasis).
23 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Bancalari, 110 F.3d
1425 (9th Cir. 1997) (Instruction omitted
the element of intent).
United States v. Doyle, 130 F.3d 523 (2d
Cir. 1997) (Erroneous instructions stated
that presumption of innocence and
reasonable doubt were to protect only
the innocent).
United States v. Wilson, 133 F.3d 251
(4th Cir. 1997) (Jury instructions did not
adequately impose burden of proving
knowledge).
United States v. Romero, 136 F.3d 1268
(10th Cir. 1998) (“Law of the case”
required element named in jury
instruction to be proven).
United States v. Rossomando, 144 F.3d
197 (2d Cir. 1998) (Ambiguous jury
instruction misled jurors).
United States v. Lampkin, 159 F.3d 607
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1140
(1999) (Jury improperly instructed that
government could not prosecute juvenile
witnesses).
United States v. Prawl, 168 F.3d 622 (2d
Cir. 1999) (Court refused to instruct jury
not to consider co-defendants guilty
plea).
Jenkins v. Huchinson, 221 F.3d 679 (4th
Cir. 2000) (Reasonable doubt instruction
improperly indicated it was only
advisory).
United States v. Gardner, 244 F.3d 784
(10th Cir. 2001) (Failure to instruct on
uncorroborated accomplice testimony).
United States v. Brown, 287 F.3d 965
(10th Cir. 2002) (Defendant should have
been given instruction on lesser included
offense).
Davis v. Mitchell, 318 F.3d 682 (6th Cir.
2003) (Instructions left jurors with the
impression that a life sentence required
unanimity).
Powell v. Galaza, 328 F.3d 558 (9th Cir.
2003) (Court’s instruction improperly
removed element of specific intent).
Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587 (9th Cir.
2003) (Court improperly instructed on
general intent regarding a specific intent
crime).
United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925
(6th Cir. 2004) (Instructions
impermissibly amended indictment).
United States v. Narog, 372 F.3d 1243 (11th
Cir. 2004) (Instruction constructively
amended indictment).
United States v. Trujillo, 390 F.3d 1267
(10th Cir. 2004) (Defendant did not have to
abandon a defense in exchange for favorable
instruction).
Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37 (2004) (Death
penalty instruction failed to adequately
instruct on mitigation evidence).
United States v. Dobson, 419 F.3d 231 (3rd
Cir. 2005) (Fraud instruction did not require
a culpable mental state).
United States v. Alferhin, 433 F.3d 1148
(9th Cir. 2006) (When materiality is an
element, jury must be instructed so).
United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153
(2d Cir. 2006) (Instruction omitted intent to
obstruct justice).
Stark v. Hickman, 455 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.
2006) (Instruction that presumed
defendant’s sanity was error).
United States v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238 (2d
Cir. 2006) (Instruction that defendant had
motive to testify falsely was improper).
United States v. Hurwitz, 459 F.3d 463 (4th
Cir. 2006) (Instruction denied physician
good faith defense to distributing
prescription pain medicines).
United States v. Arnt, 474 F.3d 1159 (9th
Cir. 2007) (Court refused to give an
involuntary manslaughter instruction in
murder case involving intoxication).
United States v. Hernandez, 476 F.3d 791
(9th Cir. 2007) (Defendant was entitled to
instruction on lesser included crime of mere
possession).
United States v. Tobin, 480 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.
2007) (Instruction equating harassment
with repeated phone calls made in bad faith
was overly broad).
United States v. Kayser, 488 F.3d 1070 (9th
Cir. 2007) (Defendant is due a charge on his
theory of defense despite the strength or
weakness of the evidence).
Deliberations
United States v. Berroa, 46 F.3d 1195 (D.C.
Cir. 1995) (Allen charge varied from ABA
standard).
United States v. Harber, 53 F.3d 236
(9th Cir. 1995) (Case agent’s report was
taken into the jury room).
United States v. Burgos, 55 F.3d 933
(4th Cir. 1995) (Allen charge asked
jurors to think about giving up firmly
held beliefs).
United States v. Araujo, 62 F.3d 930
(7th Cir. 1995) (Verdict was taken from
eleven jurors when the twelfth was
delayed by car trouble).
United States v. Ottersburg, 76 F.3d
137 (7th Cir.), clarified, 81 F.3d 657
(1996) (Plain error to allow alternate
jurors to deliberate with the jury).
United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 853
(1996) (Court should have given a “yes
or no” answer to a deadlocked jury’s
question, rather than refer them to the
testimony).
United States v. Berry, 92 F.3d 597 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1143 (1998)
(Jury improperly considered a
transcript, rather than the actual tape).
United States v. Benedict, 95 F.3d 17
(8th Cir. 1996) (Trial court should not
have accepted partial verdicts).
United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606
(2d Cir. 1997) (Juror should not have
been dismissed when he did not admit
to refusing to follow the law during
deliberations).
United States v. Hall, 116 F.3d 1253
(8th Cir. 1997) (Exposure of jury to
unrelated, but prejudicial matters,
required new trial).
United States v. Keating, 147 F.3d 895
(9th Cir. 1998) (Reasonable probability
of juror prejudice required new trial).
United States v. Lampkin, 159 F.3d 607
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1140
(1999) (Jury was allowed to consider
tapes not in evidence).
United States v. Beard, 161 F.3d 1190
(9th Cir. 1999) (Error to substitute
alternates for jurors after deliberations
began).
United States v. Spence, 163 F.3d 1280
(11th Cir. 1999) (Juror dismissed
during deliberations without just
24 Federal Convictions Reversed
cause).
United States v. Eastern Medical
Billing, Inc., 230 F.3d 600 (3rd Cir. 2000)
(Allen charge was coercive).
United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228
(3rd Cir. 2001) (Court overstepped
authority to inquire into juror’s
decision).
United States v. McElhiney, 275 F.3d
928 (10th Cir. 2001) (Allen instruction
was coercive).
French v. Jones, 332 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1018 (2003) (Jury
deliberations were a critical stage of
trial that required counsel to be present
for note from deadlocked jury).
United States v. Alvarez-Farfan, 338
F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2003) (Jury should
have been allowed to compare
handwriting samples).
United States v. Peters, 349 F.3d 842
(5th Cir. 2003) (Judge’s ex parte
communication with juror was error).
Caliendo v. Warden of California Men’s
Colony, 365 F.3d 691 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 543 U.S. 927 (2000) (Prejudice
was presumed from detective’s 20-
minute conversation with jurors).
United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191
(4th Cir. 2004) (Evidence that had not
been admitted was considered by jury).
Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152 (10th
Cir. 2004) (Improper contact between
jury and government witnesses).
United States v. Yarborough, 400 F.3d
17 (D.C. 2005) (Judge’s comments to jury
coerced conviction).
United States v. Southwell, 432 F.3d
1050 (9th Cir. 2005) (Court failed to
respond to note concerning the affect of
defendant’s sanity on verdict).
United States v. Ginyard, 444 F.3d 648
(D.C. Cir. 2006) (Court made inadequate
findings to support dismissing hold-out
juror).
United States v. Vasquez-Ruiz, 502 F.3d
700 (7th Cir. 2007) (Unrebutted
presumption of prejudice occurred when
juror’s notes had “Guilty” written).
United States v. Richard, 504 F.3d 1109
(9th Cir. 2007) (Replaying tape upon
jury request required instruction not to
overemphasize that evidence).
United States v. Jones, 504 F.3d 1218 (11th
Cir. 2007) (Charge to deadlocked jury was
coercive).
Variance
United States v. Gilbert, 47 F.3d 1116 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851 (1995)
(Proof of failure to comply with a directive of
a federal officer was in variance with the
original charge).
United States v. Johansen, 56 F.3d 347 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Variance when none of the
conspiracies alleged were proven).
United States v. Tsinhnahijinnie, 112 F.3d
988 (9th Cir. 1997) (Fatal variance between
pleading and proof of date of offense).
United States v. Mohrbacher, 182 F.3d 1041
(9th Cir. 1999) (Variance between charge of
transporting child pornography and proof of
mere receipt).
United States v. Ramirez, 182 F.3d 544 (7th
Cir. 1999) (Variance between charge and
proof in firearm case).
United States v. Morales, 185 F.3d 74 (2nd
Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1010 (2000)
(Racketeering enterprise did not last for
duration alleged in indictment).
United States v. Shipsey, 190 F.3d 1081 (9th
Cir. 1999) (Court’s instruction to jury
constructively amended indictment).
United States v. Pigee, 197 F.3d 879 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1269 (2000)
(Jury instruction constructively amended
indictment).
United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133
(2d Cir. 2001) (Variance between conspiracy
charged and proof at trial).
United States v. Collins, 350 F.3d 773 (8th
Cir. 2003) (Jury instruction constructively
amended indictment).
United States v. Ross, 412 F.3d 771 (7th Cir.
2005) (Substantial variance between date
charged and proof at trial).
United States v. Hoover, 467 F.3d 496 (5th
Cir. 2006) (Judge’s instruction allowed jury
to convict for different false statement than
charged).
United States v. Swafford, 512 F.3d 833 (6th
Cir. 2008) (There were multiple
conspiracies with different participants
alleged as a single conspiracy).
Speech / Assembly
United States v. Popa, 187 F.3d 672
(D.C. Cir. 1999) (Conviction for
harassing AUSA with racial epithets
violated first amendment).
United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037
(9th Cir. 1999) (Assembly at national
park could not be conditioned on
promise not to trespass).
United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d
1231 (11th Cir. 2000) (Requiring permit
to make public expression of views was
illegal prior restraint).
United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077
(9th Cir. 2001) (Use of profanity to a
park ranger was not disturbing the
peace).
United States v. Scarfo, 263 F.3d 80 (3d
Cir. 2001) (Prohibiting counsel’s
extrajudicial statements violated free
speech).
McCoy v. Stewart, 282 F.3d 626 (9th
Cir. 2002) (Gang members statements
to one another were protected by First
Amendment).
In Re Boston Herald, 321 F.3d 174 (1st
Cir. 2003) (Newspaper could not get
defendant’s financial affidavit under
CJA).
Interstate Commerce
United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 918 (1995)
(Extortion of interstate travelers did
not involve interstate commerce).
United States v. Cruz, 50 F.3d 714 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Shipment of firearm in
interstate commerce must occur after
the firearm is stolen).
United States v. Quigley, 53 F.3d 909
(8th Cir. 1995) (Liquor store robbery did
not affect interstate commerce).
United States v. Grey, 56 F.3d 1219
(10th Cir. 1995) (Use of currency did
not involve interstate commerce).
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
(1995) ("Gun-free school zone" law
25 Federal Convictions Reversed
found unconstitutional).
United States v. Barone, 71 F.3d 1442
(9th Cir. 1995) (False checks did not
involve interstate commerce).
United States v. Denalli, 90 F.3d 444
(11th Cir. 1996) (Arson of neighbor’s
home did not involve interstate
commerce).
United States v. Gaydos, 108 F.3d 505
(3rd Cir. 1997) (Insufficient evidence
that arson involved interstate
commerce).
United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213
(5th Cir. 1999) (No evidence that phone
calls crossed state lines for wire fraud
interstate nexus).
United States v. Wilson, 182 F.3d 737
(10th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
child pornography shipped in interstate
commerce).
United States v. Spinner, 180 F.3d 514
(3rd Cir. 1999) (Indictment failed to
allege element of interstate commerce).
United States v. Causey, 185 F.3d 407
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1277
(2000) ( No federal nexus shown
regarding communication).
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848
(2000) (Residence that was not used for
commercial purpose did not involve
interstate commerce in arson case).
United States v. Wang, 222 F.3d 234
(6th Cir. 2000) (Robbery of cash did not
have sufficient impact on interstate
commerce).
United States v. King, 227 F.3d 732 (6th
Cir. 2000) (Arson did not affect
interstate commerce).
United States v. Corp, 236 F.3d 325 (6th
Cir. 2001) (Photos of child taken by
defendant did not have sufficient
connection to interstate commerce).
United States v. Johnson, 246 F.3d 749
(5th Cir. 2001) (Plea lacked factual basis
for connection to interstate commerce).
United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172 (4th
Cir. 2001) (Admission to arson of mobile
home that served as a church did not
satisfy interstate commerce prong).
United States v. Turner, 272 F.3d 380,
amended, 280 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 2002)
(Robbery of individual who ran illegal
lottery did not affect interstate commerce).
United States v. Chance, 306 F.3d 356 (6th
Cir. 2002) (Obstruction of state laws to
facilitate illegal gambling had insufficient
nexus to interstate commerce).
United States v. Jackson, 313 F.3d 231 (5th
Cir. 2002) (Insufficient evidence that city
received over $10K of federal funding under
theft statute).
United States v. Perrotta, 313 F.3d 33 (2d
Cir. 2002) (Intended victim was only an
employee of company participating in
interstate commerce).
United States v. Burton, 324 F.3d 768 (5th
Cir. 2003) (Government failed to prove
vehicle was manufactured out of state).
United States v. Lamont, 330 F.3d 1249 (9th
Cir. 2003) (Church arson had no federal
nexus).
Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., 547 U.S. 9 (2006)
(Acts affecting commerce that are neither
robbery nor extortion are not covered by
Hobbs Act).
United States v. Craft, 484 F.3d 922 (7th
Cir. 2007) (Motorcycle club was not in
interstate commerce for arson prosecution).
United States v. Schaefer, 501 F.3d 1197
(10th Cir. 2007) (Use of Internet is not alone
sufficient proof of interstate commerce).
Conspiracy
United States v. Newton, 44 F.3d 913 (11th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 857 (1995)
(Leasing residence for a drug dealer did not
prove the defendant’s participation in a
conspiracy).
United States v. Lluesma, 45 F.3d 408 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Proof of conspiracy to export
stolen vehicles was insufficient against
defendant who did odd jobs for midlevel
conspirator).
United States v. Flores-Chapa, 48 F.3d 156
(5th Cir. 1995) (Defendant’s beeper and
personal use of drugs was not proof of
conspiracy).
United States v. Lewis, 53 F.3d 29 (4th Cir.
1995) (Court failed to instruct the jury that
conspiring with a government agent alone
required an acquittal).
United States v. Ross, 58 F.3d 154 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 954 (1995)
(Defendant was not a conspirator
merely because he sold drugs at same
location as conspirators).
United States v. Kim, 65 F.3d 123 (9th
Cir. 1995) (To be guilty of conspiracy,
the defendant must have known of the
illegal structuring).
United States v. Lopez-Ramirez, 68
F.3d 438 (11th Cir. 1995) (Insufficient
evidence of conspiracy as to defendant
who was present in home where 65
kilos of cocaine was delivered and then
seized).
United States v. Palazzolo, 71 F.3d
1233 (6th Cir. 1995) (Verdict form failed
to distinguish the object of the
conspiracy).
United States v. Martinez, 83 F.3d 371
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 998
(1997) (Defendant’s conviction for
conspiracy to possess cocaine was
reversed because there was no evidence
beyond defendant’s intent to help coconspirators
steal money).
United States v. Thomas, 114 F.3d 403
(3rd Cir. 1997) (Insufficient evidence of
a conspiracy, when it was not shown
that defendant knew cocaine was in bag
he was to retrieve).
United States v. Jensen, 141 F.3d 830
(8th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence of
drug conspiracy).
United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence of
conspiracy to import).
United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423
(11th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence
that defendant participated in
conspiracy).
United States v. Thomas, 150 F.3d 743
(7th Cir. 1998) (Defendant was entitled
to instruction that buyer/seller
relationship is not itself a conspiracy).
United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243
(9th Cir. 1998) (Gang relationship alone
did not support conspiracy).
United States v. Gore, 154 F.3d 34 (2d
Cir. 1998) (Buyer/seller relationship did
not establish conspiracy).
United States v. Idowu, 157 F.3d 265
(3rd Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence
that defendant knew purpose of drug
26 Federal Convictions Reversed
conspiracy).
United States v. Meyer, 157 F.3d 1067
(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070
(1999) (Court should have instructed
that mere buyer/seller relationship did
not establish conspiracy).
United States v. Morillo, 158 F.3d 18
(1st Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
drug conspiracy).
United States v. Dekle, 165 F.3d 826
(11th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence
that doctor conspired to illegally
distribute drugs).
United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331
(11th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
a drug conspiracy).
United States v. Vaghela, 169 F.3d 729
(11th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
conspiracy to obstruct justice).
United States v. Torres-Ramirez, 213
F.3d 978 (7th Cir. 2000) (Purchase of
drugs and knowledge of conspiracy did
not make defendant a co-conspirator).
United States v. Estrada-Macias, 218
F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2000) (Mere presence
and knowledge of a conspiracy were
insufficient to convict).
United States v. Fuchs, 218 F.3d 957
(9th Cir. 2000) (No instruction that
conspiracy must have occurred during
statute of limitations).
United States v. Rivera, 273 F.3d 751
(7th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 922
(2003) (Mere buyer/seller relationship
was not conspiracy).
United States v. Garcia-Torres, 280 F.3d
1 (1st Cir. 2002) (Defendant involved in
kidnapping and murder did not know he
was aiding drug conspiracy).
United States v. Thomas, 284 F.3d 746
(7th Cir. 2002) (Two sales did not prove
membership in conspiracy).
United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692 (8th
Cir. 2002) (Insufficient evidence of
conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine).
United States v. Culps, 300 F.3d 1069
(9th Cir. 2002) (The number of days used
for multiplying against the average
amount of drugs sold overestimated the
amount of time of continuous drug
activity related to the conspiracy).
United States v. Hernandez, 301 F.3d 886
(8th Cir. 2002) (Defendant was not proven
to be part of methamphetamine conspiracy).
United States v. Shi, 317 F.3d 715 (7th
2003) (Buyer-seller relationship alone is not
a conspiracy).
United States v. Fitz, 317 F.3d 878 (8th Cir.
2003) (Failed to show defendant was aware
of conspiracy or knowingly agreed to join it).
United States v. Banuelos, 322 F.3d 700
(9th Cir. 2003) (Jury must find conduct that
increases statutory maximum).
United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115 (2d
Cir. 2003) (Insufficient evidence that
defendant joined bribery conspiracy).
United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281
(3d Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence that the
defendant knew the identity of the
substance charged in the drug conspiracy).
United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 955 (2005)
(Firearms found in locked safe were not
shown to be in furtherance of conspiracy).
United States v. Mendoza-Larios, 416 F.3d
872 (8th Cir. 2005) (Lacking ownership of
car containing drugs, there was insufficient
evidence of conspiracy).
United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 1286
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 262 (2007)
(Insufficient evidence of money laundering
conspiracy).
United States v. Arbane, 446 F.3d 1223
(11th Cir. 2006) (Agreement with
government informant alone was not a
conspiracy).
United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 2249 (2007)
(Defendant who was absent from critical
communications was not guilty in fraud
conspiracy).
United States v. Korey, 472 F.3d 89 (3rd
Cir. 2007) (Defendant must share goal of
conspiracy, not merely commit overt act).
United States v. Wexler, 522 F.3d 194 (2d
Cir. 2008) (Writing a prescription did not
constitute conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance).
Firearms
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. (1994)
(When defendant was prohibited from
possessing a particular kind of firearm,
it must be proven he knew that he
possessed that type of firearm).
United States v. Herron, 45 F.3d 340
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant whose civil
rights were restored was not prohibited
from possessing a firearm).
United States v. Caldwell, 49 F.3d 251
(6th Cir. 1995) (Licensed dealer who
sold firearm away from business was
not guilty of unlicensed sale).
United States v. Anderson, 59 F.3d
1323 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.
999 (1995) (Multiple §924 (c) convictions
must be based on separate predicate
offenses).
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137
(1995) (Passive possession of firearm
was insufficient to prove "use" of
firearm during drug trafficking crime).
United States v. Kelly, 62 F.3d 1215
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant whose civil
rights were restored was not prohibited
from possessing a firearm).
United States v. Hayden, 64 F.3d 126
(3rd Cir. 1995) (Defendant should have
been allowed to introduce evidence of
his low intelligence and illiteracy to
rebut allegations that he knew he was
under indictment when buying a
firearm).
United States v. Edwards, 90 F.3d 199
(7th Cir. 1996) (Defendant must be
shown to know his shotgun is shorter
than 18 inches in length in order to be
liable for failure to register the
weapon).
United States v. Rogers, 94 F.3d 1519
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 252
(1998) (Government failed to prove a
defendant knew that he possessed a
fully automatic weapon).
United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1140
(1997) (Each §924 (c) conviction must be
tied to a separate predicate crime).
United States v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 835
(1997) (Defendant who did not lose his
civil rights could not be felon in
possession).
United States v. Casterline, 103 F.3d 76
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 835
(1997) (Felon in possession charge may
27 Federal Convictions Reversed
not proven solely by ownership).
United States v. Paul, 110 F.3d 869 (2d
Cir. 1997) (Court failed to give duress
instruction in a felon in possession case).
United States v. Taylor, 113 F.3d 1136
(10th Cir. 1997) (Firearm found in
shared home was not shown to be
possessed by the defendant).
United States v. Stephens, 118 F.3d 479
(6th Cir. 1997) (Separate caches of
cocaine possessed on the same day, did
not support two separate gun
enhancements).
United States v. Westmoreland, 122
F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 1997) (Agent’s
presentation of inoperable firearm to
defendant, immediately before arrest,
did not support possession of a firearm
in relation to drug crime).
United States v. Gonzalez, 122 F.3d
1383 (11th Cir. 1997) (Evidence did not
support possession of a firearm while a
fugitive from justice).
United States v. Norman, 129 F.3d 1393
(10th Cir. 1997) (Felon whose civil rights
had been restored was not illegally in
possession of firearm).
United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 1340
(9th Cir. 1997) (Jury should have been
required to decide the type of firearm).
United States v. Graves, 143 F.3d 1185
(9th Cir. 1998) (Accessory to felon in
possession had to know co-defendant
was a felon and possessed firearm).
United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (Failure to show firearm
was semiautomatic assault weapon).
United States v. Benboe, 157 F.3d 1181
(9th Cir. 1999) (Firearm conviction not
supported by evidence).
United States v. Sanders,157 F.3d 302
(5th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence
that defendant carried firearm).
United States v. Mount, 161 F.3d 675
(11th Cir. 1999) (Weapon found in
stairwell was not carried).
United States v. Gilliam, 167 F.3d 628
(D.C.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1164 (1999)
(Failed to prove prior conviction in felon
in possession).
United States v. Aldrich, 169 F.3d 526
(8th Cir. 1999) (Vacating related gun count
required entire new trial on others).
United States v. Meza-Corrales, 183 F.3d
1116 (9th Cir. 1999) (Felon had civil rights
restored and could possess firearms).
United States v. Martin, 180 F.3d 965 (8th
Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
constructive possession of a firearm).
United States v. Fowler, 198 F.3d 808 (11th
Cir. 1999) (Restoration of rights by state
allowed firearms possession).
United States v. Howard, 214 F. 3d 361 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 909 (2000) (Jury
could not infer defendant knew firearm was
stolen merely because he was felon, or that
firearm was found next to one with
obliterated serial number).
United States v. Adams, 214 F.3d 724 (6th
Cir. 2000) (Simultaneous possession of
firearm and ammunition may result in only
one conviction).
United States v. Coleman, 208 F.3d 786 (9th
Cir. 2000) (Insufficient evidence that
defendant knew co-defendant had a firearm
for armed bank robbery conviction).
United States v. Moerman, 233 F.3d 379
(6th Cir. 2000) (Defendant merely
brandished firearm, not otherwise used).
United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) (Felon could get instruction that
firearm was briefly possessed for legal
purpose).
United States v. Hishaw, 235 F.3d 565 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 908 (2001)
(Insufficient evidence that defendant
possessed firearm found under his car seat).
United States v. Sanders, 240 F.3d 1279
(10th Cir. 2001) (Evidence did not prove
defendant knew that weapon had silencer).
United States v. Finley, 245 F.3d 199 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1144 (2002)
(Single gun could not be used for two
possessions during a drug trafficking crime).
United States v. Laskie, 258 F.3d 1047 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“Honorable discharge” of drug
offense in Nevada counts as a set aside of
the prior conviction).
United States v. Osborne, 262 F.3d 486 (5th
Cir. 2001) (Civil rights were restored even
though state law was later changed).
United States v. Fix, 264 F.3d 532 (5th Cir.
2001) (Granting new trial for state
conviction removed disability to possess
firearm).
United States v. Gayle, 342 F.3d 89 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1026 (2005)
(Felon in possession of a firearm must
have been previously convicted in the
United States).
United States v.Rawlings, 341 F.3d 657
(7th Cir. 2003) (Without ability to
control firearm defendant did not have
constructive possession).
United States v. Jones, 371 F.3d 363
(7th Cir. 2004) (Accompanying straw
purchaser did not prove knowledge).
United States v. Hammond, 371 F.3d
776 (11th Cir. 2004) (Cardboard tube
containing gunpowder was not
explosive device).
United States v. Augustin, 376 F.3d 135
(3rd Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence
that defendant was drug user while
possessing firearm).
United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d
539 (2d Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence
of drug distribution).
United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107
(2d Cir. 2004) (Drug and firearms
convictions were based on insufficient
evidence).
United States v. Harris, 397 F.3d 404
(6th Cir. 2005) (Jury did not find
firearm was semiautomatic for crime of
use during a drug offense).
United States v. Orellana, 405 F.3d 360
(5th Cir. 2005) (Defendant with
temporary immigration status was not
a prohibited person).
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385
(2005) (Defendant previously convicted
in foreign country was not prohibited
person).
United States v. Simpson, 442 F.3d 737
(9th Cir. 2006) (Defendant is not
prohibited person once civil rights are
restored).
United States v. Elrawy, 448 F.3d 309
(5th Cir. 2006) (Alien whose visa had
expired was improperly charged for
possession after entering with nonimmigrant
visa).
United States v. Brown, 449 F.3d 154
28 Federal Convictions Reversed
(D.C. Cir.), amended 463 F.3d 1 (2006)
(Accidental discharge was not in
furtherance of drug trafficking).
United States v. Rios, 449 F.3d 1009
(9th Cir. 2006) (Mere possession of
firearm at residence was not in
furtherance of drug trafficking).
United States v. Frechette, 456 F.3d 1
(1st Cir. 2006) (Prior conviction for
domestic violence did have valid jury
trial waiver).
United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484
(5th Cir. 2006) (Insufficient evidence to
support plea for possessing firearm in
furtherance of drug trafficking).
United States v. Chenowith, 459 F.3d
635 (5th Cir. 2006) (Defendant whose
civil rights had been restored could
possess firearm).
United States v. Nobriga, 474 F.3d 561
(9th Cir. 2006) (Reckless offense did not
meet definition of domestic violence).
United States v. Introcaso, 506 F.3d 260
(3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1324
(2008) (Rule of lenity applies to whether
unregistered firearm was an antique).
Parker v. Renico, 506 F.3d 444 (6th Cir.
2007) (Mere presence as passenger in
vehicle was insufficient to establish
possession of firearm).
United States v. Hill, 539 F.3d 1213
(10th Cir. 2008) (Defendant was not a
felon when prior never put him in
jeopardy to receive a sentence greater
than one year).
United States v. Daniel, 518 F.3d 205
(3d Cir. 2008) (Proof of lack of
authorization to possess firearm did not
constitute proof of lack of authorization
to possess ammunition).
Extortion
United States v. Tomblin, 46 F.3d 1369
(5th Cir. 1995) (Private citizen did not
act under color of official right).
United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Facilitating payment of a
debt was not extortion).
United States v. Delano, 55 F.3d 720 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Services or labor were not
property within the meaning of a statute
used as a predicate for RICO).
United States v. Wallace, 59 F.3d 333 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Demanding payment from
fraudulent check scheme was not extortion).
United States v. Allen, 127 F.3d 260 (2d Cir.
1997) (Insufficient evidence of extortionate
credit when terms of loan were consensual).
United States v. Saadey, 393 F.3d 669 (6th
Cir. 2005) (Extortion not under color of
official right).
Drugs
United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860 (10th
Cir. 1995) (Car passenger was not shown to
have knowledge of the drugs).
United States v. Johnson, 46 F.3d 1166
(D.C. Cir. 1995) (Government failed to prove
distribution within 1000 feet of a school).
United States v. Valerio, 48 F.3d 58 (1st Cir.
1995) (Insufficient evidence that the drugs
were intended for distribution).
United States v. Andujar, 49 F.3d 16 (1st
Cir. 1995) (There was no more evidence
than mere presence).
United States v. Jones, 49 F.3d 628 (10th
Cir. 1995) (Inferences derived from standing
near open trunk did not prove knowledge).
United States v. Polk, 56 F.3d 613 (5th Cir.
1995) (Use of the defendant’s car and home
were insufficient to show participation).
United States v. Horsley, 56 F.3d 50 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Distribution of cocaine is lesser
included offense of distribution of cocaine
within a 1,000 feet of a school, and the jury
should be charged accordingly).
United States v. Kitchen, 57 F.3d 516 (7th
Cir. 1995) (Momentarily picking up a kilo
for inspection was not possession).
United States v. Kearns, 61 F.3d 1422 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Brief sampling of marijuana was
not possession).
United States v. Lucien, 61 F.3d 366 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Instruction on simple possession
should have been given in a drug
distribution case).
United States v. Applewhite, 72 F.3d 140
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1227
(1996) (Government failed to prove
distribution within a 1000 feet of a school).
United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177 (11th
Cir. 1996) (Insufficient evidence that the
defendant took possession of marijuana
when he did not have key to car where
drugs were stored).
United States v. Wozniak, 126 F.3d 105
(2d Cir. 1997) (Charge on marijuana
impermissibly amended indictment
alleging cocaine and
methamphetamine).
United States v. Hunt, 129 F.3d 739
(5th Cir. 1997) (There was insufficient
evidence of an intent to distribute).
United States v. Soto-Silva, 129 F.3d
340 (5th Cir. 1997) (Deliberate
ignorance instruction was not
warranted for charge of maintaining
premises for drug distribution).
United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1128
(1998) (Evidence that defendant was
asked to find drivers did not prove
constructive possession of hidden
marijuana).
United States v. Lombardi,138 F.3d 559
(5th Cir. 1998) (Evidence did not
support conviction for using juvenile to
commit drug offense).
United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1059
(1999) (Insufficient evidence that
passenger of vehicle possessed drugs or
gun hidden in car).
United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585
( 4th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence
that drug offense occurred within 1000
feet of a playground or public housing).
United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal,
141 F.3d 133 (5th Cir. 1997)
(Insufficient evidence of possession of
marijuana where defendant never took
control).
United States v. Ortega-Reyna, 148
F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient
evidence that drugs hidden in borrowed
truck were defendant’s).
United States v. Quintanar, 150 F.3d
902 (8th Cir. 1998) (No evidence that
defendant exercised control over
contraband).
United States v. Valadez-Gallegos, 162
F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 1999) (Passenger
was not linked to contraband in
vehicle).
United States v. Edwards, 166 F.3d
29 Federal Convictions Reversed
1362 (11th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient
evidence of drug possession where
defendant merely picked up package).
United States v. Orduno-Aguilera, 183
F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient
evidence that substance was illegal
steroid).
United States v. Monger, 185 F.3d 574
(9th Cir. 1999) (Court should have
instructed on lesser offense of simple
possession).
United States v. Garcia-Sanchez, 189
F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1999) (Drug
quantities not supported by evidence
where defendant did not agree to sell
from specific location).
United States v. Bryce, 208 F.3d 346 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 884 (2002)
(Uncorroborated admissions were
insufficient to establish possession or
distribution).
United States v. Corral-Gastelum, 240
F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2001) (Mere
proximity to drugs did not prove
possession).
United States v. Noble, 246 F.3d 946
(7th Cir. 2001) (Failure to charge drug
quantity was plain error).
United States v. Huerto-Orozco, 272
F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2001) (Insufficient
evidence that defendant possessed drugs
in bag found in cab).
United States v. Thomas, 274 F.3d 655
(2d Cir. 2001) (Failure to plead and
prove amount of crack limits
punishment to lowest statutory
maximum).
United States v. Henry, 282 F.3d 242 (3d
Cir. 2002) (Drug quantity raising
statutory maximum must be pleaded
and proven to jury).
United States v. Bennafield, 287 F.3d
320 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 961
(2002) (Simultaneous possession of
multiple packages was a single crime).
United States v. Allen, 302 F.3d 1260
(11th Cir. 2002) (Jury must decide type
and quantity of drugs when it affects
maximum punishment).
United States v. Velasco-Heredia, 319
F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) (Judge could
not make drug quantity finding that
increased statutory maximum
punishment).
United States v. Hodge, 321 F.3d 429 (3rd
Cir. 2003) (Wax/flour mixture cannot be
prosecuted as drug analogue).
United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622
(9th Cir. 2003) (Flying drugs between points
in the U.S. is not importation even if
traveling into international airspace).
United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281
(3rd Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence that
defendant participated in drug transaction).
United States v. Trujillo, 390 F.3d 1267
(10th Cir. 2004) (Defendant was entitled to
lesser charge of simple possession).
United States v. Byfield, 391 F.3d 277 (D.C.
Cir. 2004) (Government failed to rebut
defense that weight of drugs was partly of
sugar).
United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539
(2d Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence of drug
possession).
United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107 (2d
Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence of drug
distribution).
United States v. Selwyn, 398 F.3d 1064 (8th
Cir. 2005) (Enhanced drug quantity was not
submitted to jury).
United States v. Caseer, 399 F.3d 828 (6th
Cir. 2005) (No fair notice that Khat
contained controlled substance).
United States v. Collins, 401 F.3d 212 (4th
Cir. 2005) (Enhanced drug quantity was not
submitted to jury).
United States v. Moncivais, 401 F.3d 751
(6th Cir. 2005) (Enhanced drug quantity
was not submitted to jury).
United States v. Dunmire, 403 F.3d 722
(10th Cir. 2005) (Insufficient evidence of
charged drug quantity).
United States v. Scofield, 433 F.3d 580 (8th
Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1215 (2006)
(Mere proximity to drugs is insufficient
evidence of possession).
United States v. Rojas Alvarez, 451 F.3d 320
(5th Cir. 2006) (Insufficient evidence spouse
knew drugs were in home).
United States v. Hall, 473 F.3d 1295 (10th
Cir. 2007) (Insufficient proof defendant
possessed drugs on charged date).
United States v. Stephens, 482 F.3d 669
(4th Cir. 2007) (Evidence was
insufficient to corroborate defendant's
statement and establish his guilt of
drug crimes).
United States v. Esquivel-Ortega, 484
F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2007) (Insufficient
evidence that passenger had knowledge
of concealed drugs).
United States v. Lopez-Vanegas, 493
F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2007) (Discussing
drug crime to occur abroad does not
violate U.S. law).
United States v. Powell, 503 F.3d 147
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1103
(2008) (Drug distribution within
proximity to a school applies only to
certain defined schools).
United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 529
(4th Cir. 2008) (Jury, not judge, must
make drug quantity findings to
determine statutory minimums and
maximums).
CCE / RICO
United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1092
(1996) (Insufficient to find a CCE when
there were persons who could not be
legally counted as supervisees).
United States v. Witek, 61 F.3d 819
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1060
(1996) (Mere buyer-seller relationship
did not satisfy management
requirement for conviction of engaging
in continuing criminal enterprise).
United States v. Russell, 134 F.3d 171
(3rd Cir. 1998) (CCE instruction
omitted unanimity requirement).
United States v. To, 144 F.3d 737 (11th
Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence of
RICO and Hobbs Act violations).
United States v. Polanco, 145 F.3d 536
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1071
(1999) (Insufficient evidence that
defendant murdered victim to maintain
position in CCE).
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S.
813 (1999) (Jury must agree on specific
violations).
United States v. Frega, 179 F.3d 793
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1191
(2000) (Court’s instruction failed to
30 Federal Convictions Reversed
identify potential predicate acts in RICO
case).
United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 936
(2001) (Role as organizer or leader must
be based on managing persons, not
merely assets).
United States v. McSwain, 197 F.3d 472
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1138
(2000) (Conspiracy to manufacture and
distribute are lesser offenses of CCE).
United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691
(4th Cir. 2000) (Omission of instruction
requiring unanimity on specific
violations reversed CCE conviction).
United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150
(2d Cir. 2001) (Talk of “war” and
“grabbing shirts” did not support CCE).
Williams v. Obstfeld, 314 F.3d 1270
(11th Cir. 2002) (Absent a joint
enterprise defendant could not be
vicariously liable for acts of others).
Soto-Negron v. Taber Partners I, 339
F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2003) (Series of
improperly cashed checks were not
RICO predicates).
United States v. Cummings, 395 F.3d
392 (7th Cir. 2005) (Insufficient evidence
of RICO crimes).
Fraud / Theft
United States v. Cannon, 41 F.3d 1462
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 823
(1995) (Proof of false documents to elicit
payment on government contracts was
insufficient when documents did not
contain false information).
United States v. Manarite, 44 F.3d 1407
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 851
(1995) (Mailings were not related to
scheme to defraud).
United States v. Altman, 48 F.3d 96 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Mailings were too remote to
be related to the fraud).
United States v. Hammoude, 51 F.3d
288 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S.
1128 (1995) (Composite stamp did not
make a visa a counterfeit document).
United States v. Wilbur, 58 F.3d 1291
(8th Cir. 1995) (Physician who stole
drugs did not obtain them by deception).
United States v. Klingler, 61 F.3d 1234 (6th
Cir. 1995) (Customs broker’s
misappropriation of funds did not involve
money of the United States).
United States v. Valentine, 63 F.3d 459 (6th
Cir. 1995) (Government agent must convert
more that $5000 in a single year to violate
18 U.S.C. § 666).
United States v. Campbell, 64 F.3d 967 (5th
Cir. 1995) (Bank officers did not cause a loss
to the bank).
United States v. Lewis, 67 F.3d 225 (9th
Cir. 1995) (State chartered foreign bank was
not covered by the bank fraud statute).
United States v. Johnson, 71 F.3d 139 (4th
Cir. 1995) (Court improperly instructed the
jury that a credit union was federally
insured).
United States v. Mueller, 74 F.3d 1152 (11th
Cir. 1996) (Filing a misleading affidavit to
delay a civil proceeding involving a bank
was not bank fraud).
United States v. Morris, 81 F.3d 131 (11th
1996) (Sale of a phone that disguised its
identity was not fraud in connection with an
access device).
United States v. Allen, 88 F.3d 765 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1202 (1997)
(Government failed to prove that a credit
union was federally insured).
United States v. Wester, 90 F.3d 592 (1st
Cir. 1996) (Loan’s face value was not the
proper amount of loss when collateral was
pledged).
United States v. McMinn, 103 F.3d 216 (1st
Cir. 1997) (Defendant was not in the
business of selling stolen goods unless he
sold goods stolen by others).
United States v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069
(1st Cir. 1997) (Merely browsing confidential
computer files was not wire fraud or
computer fraud).
United States v. Tencer, 107 F.3d 1120 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 960 (1997)
(Insurance checks that were not tied to
fraudulent claims were insufficient proof of
mail fraud).
United States v. Todd, 108 F.3d 1329 (11th
Cir. 1997) (Defendant was improperly
prohibited from introducing evidence that
employees implicitly agreed that pension
funds could be used to save the company).
United States v. Cochran, 109 F.3d 660
(10th Cir. 1997) (There was insufficient
proof of mail fraud without evidence of
misrepresentation).
United States v. Parsons, 109 F.3d 1002
(4th Cir. 1997) (Money that defendant
legitimately spent as postal employee
could not be counted toward fraud).
United States v. Grossman, 117 F.3d
255 (5th Cir. 1997) (Personal use of
funds from business loan was not bank
fraud).
United States v. Cross, 128 F.3d 145
(3rd Cir.), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1076
(1998) (Fixing cases was not mail fraud
just because court mailed disposition
notices).
United States v. LaBarbara, 129 F.3d
81 (2nd Cir. 1997) (Government failed
to show use of mails in a fraud case).
United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (The court should have
given an advice of counsel instruction
on an embezzlement count).
United States v. Baird, 134 F.3d 1276
(6th Cir. 1998) (Instruction failed to
charge jury that contractor was only
liable for falsity of costs it claimed to
have incurred).
United States v. Adkinson, 135 F.3d
1363 (11th Cir. 1998) (Dismissal of
underlying bank fraud undermined
convictions for conspiracy, mail and
wire fraud schemes, and money
laundering).
United States v. Rodriguez, 140 F.3d
163 (2nd Cir. 1998) (Insufficient
evidence of bank fraud).
United States v. Ely, 142 F.3d 1113 (9th
Cir. 1997) (Government failed to prove
defendant was a bank director as
charged in the indictment).
United States v. D’Agostino, 145 F.3d
69 (2nd Cir. 1998) (Diverted funds were
not taxable income for purposes of tax
evasion).
United States v. Schnitzer, 145 F.3d
721 (5th Cir. 1998) (Impermissible
theory of fraud justified new trial).
United States v. Shotts, 145 F.3d 1289
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1177
(1999) (Bail bond license was not
property within meaning of mail fraud
31 Federal Convictions Reversed
statute).
United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1030
(1998) (Passing bad checks was not
unauthorized use of an access device).
United States v. Evans, 148 F.3d 477
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112
(1999) (No evidence that mailings
advanced fraudulent scheme).
United States v. Blasini-Lluberas, 169
F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 1999) (There was no
misapplication of bank funds on a debt
not yet due).
United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833
(8th Cir. 1998) (Administrative tax
assessment was not conclusive proof of
tax deficiency).
United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d
1147 (11th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient
evidence of fraud).
United States v. Rodrigues, 159 F.3d 439
(9th Cir.), amended, 170 F.3d 881 (1999)
(Insufficient evidence of fraud and theft).
United States v. Hanson, 161 F.3d 896
(5th Cir. 1999) (Factual questions about
bank fraud should have been decided by
jury).
United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180 (2d
Cir. 1999) (No evidence that checks were
altered, that signatures were not
genuine, or that they were intended to
victimize bank).
United States v. Lindsay, 184 F.3d 1138
(10th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence
that bank was FDIC insured).
United States v. Hartsel, 199 F.3d 812
(6th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1070
(2000) (Receipt of mailed bank
statements was not a fraudulent use of
mails).
United States v. Principe, 203 F.3d 849
(5th Cir. 2000) (Possession of counterfeit
document should not have been
sentenced under trafficking guidelines).
United States v. Tucker, 217 F.3d 960
(8th Cir. 2000) (Loss to IRS occurred
when taxes were due, not when
conspiracy began).
Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12
(2000) (Victim must actually receive the
item for there to be mail fraud).
United States v. Gee, 226 F.3d 885 (7th Cir.
2000) (Insufficient evidence of mail and wire
fraud where defendant did not conceal
material facts).
United States v. Rahseparian, 231 F.3d
1267 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 974
(2001) (Jury could not reasonably infer that
father knew of son’s fraudulent business
scheme).
United States v. Odiodio, 244 F.3d 398 (5th
Cir. 2001) (No bank fraud when bank not
subject to civil liability).
United States v. Howerter, 248 F.3d 198
(3rd Cir. 2001) (Person authorized to write
checks did not commit bank larceny by
cashing checks payable to himself).
United States v. Ali, 266 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir.
2001) (FDIC insurance at time of trail did
not prove bank was insured at time of
fraud).
United States v. La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 989 (2002)
(Ex post facto application of bank fraud
statute).
United States v. Maung, 267 F.3d 1113
(11th Cir. 2001) (Defendant was not in the
business of selling stolen property).
United States v. Thomas, 315 F.3d 190 (3d
Cir. 2002) (Insufficient evidence of bank
fraud when there was no loss and no intent
to steal from a bank).
United States v. Bobo, 344 F.3d 1076 (11th
Cir. 2003) (Insufficient evidence of health
care fraud).
United States v. Habegger, 370 F.3d 441
(4th Cir. 2004) (Insufficient evidence of
trafficking in counterfeit goods).
United States v. Chandler, 388 F.3d 796
(11th Cir. 2004) (Promotional games were
not mail fraud).
United States v. Cacho-Bonilla, 404 F.3d 84
(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 956 (2005)
(Insufficient evidence of false statement).
United States v. Cassese, 428 F.3d 92 (2d
Cir. 2005) (A defendant’s interest in a
transaction is insufficient to prove insider
trading).
United States v. Ligon, 440 F.3d 1182 (9th
Cir. 2006) (Archaeological value alone is not
value for purposes of a theft).
United States v. Ingles, 445 F.3d 830 (5th
Cir. 2006) (Insured had no knowledge
or arson and was not guilty of mail
fraud).
United States v. Hunt, 456 F.3d 1255
(10th Cir. 2006) (Checks signed with
authority were not forged securities).
United States v. Turner, 465 F.3d 667
(6th Cir. 2006) (Mail fraud cannot be
based upon the fact that official
received a salary).
United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 478
(3rd Cir. 2006) (Employee’s theft of
funds did not affect delivery or payment
of health care benefits).
United States v. Milwitt, 475 F.3d 1150
(9th Cir. 2007) (Bankruptcy fraud must
be proven by showing identifiable
victims or class).
United States v. Thompson, 484 F.3d
877 (7th Cir. 2007) (Absent a tangible
benefit, or evidence of a corrupt motive,
steering of a contract for political
reasons, was not fraud).
United States v. Ratcliff, 488 F.3d 639
(5th Cir. 2007) (Deceiving voting public
to get re-elected was not mail fraud).
United States v. Spirk, 503 F.3d 619
(7th Cir. 2007) (Testimony that witness
probably received letter did not
establish a mailing).
United States v. Urciuoli, 513 F.3d 290
(1st Cir. 2008) (Instructions allowed
consideration of non-criminal behavior
of a legislator as a deprivation of honest
services).
United States v. Howard, 517 F.3d 731
(5th Cir. 2008) (An erroneous
instruction on fraud tainted a
remaining count for falsifying books).
Money Laundering
United States v. Newton, 44 F.3d 913
(11th Cir. 1995) (Proof of aiding and
abetting money laundering conspiracy
was insufficient against defendant who
leased house on behalf of conspirator).
United States v. Rockelman, 49 F.3d
418 (8th Cir. 1995) (Evidence failed to
show the transaction was intended to
conceal illegal proceeds).
United States v. Torres, 53 F.3d 1129
32 Federal Convictions Reversed
(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 883
(1995) (Buying a car with drug proceeds
was not money laundering).
United States v. Willey, 57 F.3d 1374
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1029
(1995) (Transferring money between
accounts was insufficient evidence of an
intent to conceal).
United States v. Wynn, 61 F.3d 921
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1015
(1995) (Insufficient evidence that the
defendant knew his structuring was
unlawful).
United States v. Nelson, 66 F.3d 1036
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant’s eagerness to
complete the transaction was not
sufficient to prove an attempt).
United States v. Kramer, 73 F.3d 1067
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1011
(1996) (Transaction that occurred
outside of the United States was not
money laundering).
United States v. Phipps, 81 F.3d 1056
(11th Cir. 1996) (Not money laundering
to deposit a series of checks that are less
than $10K each).
United States v. Pipkin, 114 F.3d 528
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 821
(1996) (Defendant did not knowingly
structure a currency transaction).
United States v. High, 117 F.3d 464
(11th Cir. 1997) (Money laundering
instruction omitted the element of
willfulness).
United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278
(5th Cir. 1997) (Money laundering proof
was insufficient where defendants
neither handled nor disposed of drug
proceeds).
United States v. Christo, 129 F.3d 578
(11th Cir. 1997) (Check kiting scheme
was not money laundering).
United States v. Shoff, 151 F.3d 889 (8th
Cir. 1998) (Purchase with proceeds of
fraud was not money laundering).
United States v. Calderon, 169 F.3d 718
(11th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of
money laundering).
United States v. Zvi, 168 F.3d 49 (2d
Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 872 (1999)
(Charging domestic and international
money laundering based on the same
transactions was multiplicitous).
United States v. Brown, 186 F.3d 661 (5th
Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of money
laundering when no proof checks were
connected to fraud).
United States v. Anderson, 189 F.3d 1201
(10th Cir. 1999) (Titling vehicle in mother’s
name did not prove money laundering).
United States v. Messer, 197 F.3d 330 (9th
Cir. 1999) (Coded language did not support
money laundering conviction).
United States v. Miranda, 197 F.3d 1357
(11th Cir. 1999) (Ex post facto application of
money laundering conspiracy statute)
United States v. Olaniyi-Oke, 199 F.3d 767
(5th Cir. 1999) (Purchase of computers for
personal use was not money laundering).
United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 974 (2001)
(When legitimate and illegal funds were
commingled, government had to prove
illegal funds were laundered).
United States v. Marshall, 248 F.3d 525 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 925 (2001)
(Purchase of personal property was not
money laundering).
United States v. Braxton-Brown-Smith, 278
F.3d 1348 (D.C Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S.
932 (2002) (No presumption that money
drawn from commingled funds is unclean).
United States v. Corchado-Peralta, 318 F.3d
255 (1st Cir. 2003) (Insufficient evidence
defendant knew the character of the
money).
United States v. Carucci, 364 F.3d 339 (1st
Cir. 2004) (No connection shown between
alleged unlawful activity and financial
transactions).
Aiding and Abetting
United States v. de la Cruz-Paulino, 61 F.3d
986 (1st Cir. 1995) (Moving packages of
contraband and statements about police was
not aiding and abetting).
United States v. Luciano-Mosquero, 63 F.3d
1142 (1st. Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1234
(1996) (No evidence that the defendant took
steps to assist in the use of a firearm).
United States v. Beckner, 134 F.3d 714 (5th
Cir. 1998) (Lawyer was not shown to have
knowledge of client’s fraud for aiding and
abetting).
United States v. Nelson, 137 F.3d 1094
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 901
(1999) (Evidence did not support aiding
and abetting use and carrying of a
firearm during crime of violence).
United States v. Stewart, 145 F.3d 273
(5th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence
that passenger aided and abetted drug
possession without intent to distribute).
United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160
F.3d 511 (9th Cir. 1999) (Insufficient
evidence of aiding and abetting when no
money found on defendant and was not
present at sale).
United States v. Wilson, 160 F.3d 732
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 828
(1999) (Insufficient evidence of aiding
and abetting murder or retaliation
where defendant only told shooter of
victim’s location).
United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1111
(2000) (Insufficient evidence of
conspiring or aiding and abetting
murder for hire when defendant did not
share intent with principal).
United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (Cannot aid and abet
from outside United States).
United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 148
(2007) (Causing a legitimate check to be
issued was not aiding and abetting
bank fraud).
United States v. Penaloza-Duarte, 473
F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2006) (Defendant did
not knowingly associate with drug
trafficking venture).
United States v. Gardner, 488 F.3d 700
(6th Cir. 2007) (Driver of car did not aid
or abet possession of firearms by other
occupants).
Perjury
United States v. Hairston, 46 F.3d 361
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 840
(1995) (Ambiguity in the question to the
defendant was insufficient for perjury
conviction).
United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1184
(1996) (Statement that was literally
true did not support a perjury
conviction).
33 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Jaramillo, 69 F.3d 388
(9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant charged with
perjury by inconsistent statements must
have made both under oath).
United States v. Shotts, 145 F.3d 1289
(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1177
(1999) (Evasive, but true, answer was
not perjury).
False Statements
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506
(1995) (Materiality is an element of a
false statement case).
United States v. Bush, 58 F.3d 482 (9th
Cir. 1995) (No material false statements
or omissions were made to receive union
funds).
United States v. Rothhammer, 64 F.3d
554 (10th Cir. 1995) (Contractual
promise to pay was not a factual
assertion).
United States v. Campbell, 64 F.3d 967
(5th Cir. 1995) (Defendant’s
misrepresentations to a bank were not
material).
United States v. McCormick, 72 F.3d
1404 (9th Cir. 1995) (Defendant who did
not read documents before signing them
was not guilty of making a false
statement).
United States v. Barrett, 111 F.3d 947
(D.C.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 867 (1997)
(Defendant’s misrepresentation to court
was not a material false statement).
United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265
(10th Cir. 1998) (Answer to ambiguous
question did not support conviction for
false declaration).
United States v. Hodge, 150 F.3d 1148
(9th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence of
false statements when no certification
made on documents).
United States v. Sorenson, 179 F.3d 823
(9th Cir. 1999) (Defendant’s false
statements were contained in an
unsigned loan application).
United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1080
(2000) (Insufficient proof that defendant
was responsible for more than 100 false
immigration documents).
United States v. Good, 326 F.3d 589 (4th
Cir. 2003) (Regulation that was basis for
alleged false statement was not effective at
time statement was made).
United States v. Cacioppo, 460 F.3d 1012
(8th Cir. 2006) (Failure to make disclosure
was not false statement when defendant did
not know requirement).
United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075
(9th Cir. 2007) (Presentence interview may
not be used to prosecute materially false
statement to federal government).
United States v. Robison, 505 F.3d 1208
(11th Cir. 2007) (Statements to agency must
be made knowingly false).
Boulware v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 1168
(2008) (Defendant was not required to show
that either he or the corporation that
distributed funds to him intended a capital
return when the distribution occurred, for
the purpose of defeating the tax deficiency
element of the tax evasion offense).
Contempt
United States v. Mathews, 49 F.3d 676
(11th Cir. 1995) (Certification of contempt
must be filed by the judge who witnessed
the alleged contempt).
United States v. Forman, 71 F.3d 1214 (6th
Cir. 1995) (Attorney was not in contempt for
releasing grand jury materials in partner’s
case).
United States v. Brown, 72 F.3d 25 (5th Cir.
1995) (Lawyer’s comments on a judge’s trial
performance were not reckless).
United States v. Mottweiler, 82 F.3d 769
(7th Cir. 1996) (Defendant must have acted
willfully to be guilty of criminal contempt).
United States v. Grable, 98 F.3d 251 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1059 (1997)
(Contempt order could not stand in light of
incorrect advice about Fifth Amendment
privilege).
Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1188 (1997)
(Magistrate judge did not have the authority
to hold a litigant in criminal contempt).
United States v. Neal, 101 F3d 993 (4th Cir.
1996) (Plain error for a judge to prosecute
and preside over a contempt action).
United States v. Vezina, 165 F.3d 176 (2d
Cir. 1999) (Insufficient evidence of criminal
contempt of a TRO dealing with a third
party).
United States v. Harris, 314 F.3d 608
(D.C. Cir. 2002) (No competent evidence
that defendant refused to testify at
grand jury).
In Re Smothers, 322 F.3d 438 (6th Cir.
2003) (Proper notification was not
followed).
United States v. Murphy, 326 F.3d 501
(4th Cir. 2003) (An outburst in court
could only be charged as a single count
of contempt).
In re Troutt, 460 F.3d 887 (7th Cir.
2006) (Criminal contempt of attorney
did not follow rules of criminal
procedure).
United States v. Rangolan, 464 F.3d
321 (2d Cir. 2006) (Approaching juror in
cafeteria did not support contempt
conviction).
Immigration
United States v. Bahena-Cardenas, 70
F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1995) (Alien who
was not served with warrant of
deportation, was not guilty of illegal
reentry).
United States v. Dieguimde, 119 F.3d
933 (11th Cir. 1997) (Order of
deportation did not consider defendant’s
request for political asylum).
United States v. Gallardo-Mendez, 150
F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 1998) (Prior guilty
plea did not prevent defendant from
contesting noncitizen status).
United States v. Pacheco-Medina, 212
F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2000) (Defendant
who was captured a few yards from
border did not enter United States).
United States v. Rodriguez-Fernandez,
234 F.3d 498 (8th Cir. 2000) (Without
detention order in place, defendant did
not escape from INS).
United States v. Ruiz-Lopez, 234 F.3d
445 (9th Cir. 2000) (Presence at border
is not the same as being found in the
United States).
United States v. Matsumaru, 244 F.3d
1092 (9th Cir. 2001) (Insufficient
evidence that attorney set up practice
to evade immigration laws).
34 Federal Convictions Reversed
United States v. Herrera-Ochoa, 245
F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2001) (Defendant’s
presence at trial could not be evidence
that he had previously entered United
States).
United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364
F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004) (Defendant
denied due process when previous
removal proceeding was not translated
into Spanish).
United States v. Sosa, 387 F.3d 131 (2d
Cir. 2004) (Procedural defect at
deportation hearing voided illegal reentry
conviction).
United States v. Bello-Bahena, 411 F.3d
1083 (9th Cir. 2005)(Defendant placed in
official restraint upon entering country
was not “found in U.S.”).
United States v. Zavala-Mendez, 411
F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2005)(Alien who
proceeded directly to border station was
not “found in the U.S.”).
United States v. Smith-Baltiher, 424
F.3d 913 (2005) (Defendant entitled to
present defense of mistaken citizenship).
United States v. Lombera-Valdovinos,
429 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2005) (Deported
alien who only intended to be surrender
was not guilty of attempted illegal
reentry).
United States v. El Shami, 434 F.3d 659
(4th Cir. 2005) (Prior deportation was
undermined by lack of notice and
reasonable probability of relief).
United States v. Lopez-Perera, 438 F.3d
932 (9th Cir. 2006) (Alien at secondary
inspection had not “entered” United
States).
United States v. Lopez, 445 F.3d 90 (2d
Cir. 2006) (Deportation was defective in
that defendant had been falsely told he
had no grounds for relief).
United States v. Camacho-Lopez, 450
F.3d 928 (9th Cir.2006) (Defendant who
had been eligible for discretionary relief
was improperly deported).
United States v. Charleswell, 456 F.3d
347 (3rd Cir. 2006) (Deportation was
subject to attack over failure to inform
defendant of right to appeal).
United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88
(3rd Cir. 2008) (Explaining to an alien
how to avoid detection was not
harboring, concealing or shielding him).
Pornography
United States v. McKelvey, 203 F.3d 66 (1st
Cir. 2000) (Single film strip with three
images was not “3 or more matters” under
child porn statute).
United States v. Henriques, 234 F.3d 263
(5th Cir. 2000) (At least three images must
travel in interstate commerce for child
pornography conviction).
United States v. Runyan, 290 F.3d 223 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 888 (2002)
(Insufficient evidence that some of the
images were tied to Internet).
United States v. Ellyson, 326 F.3d 522 (4th
Cir. 2003) (Government failed to show
computer images involved an actual child).
United States v. Pearl, 324 F.3d 1210 (10th
Cir.), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 934 (2004)
(Convictions for materials that appeared
depict minors were unconstitutional).
Violent Crimes
United States v. Main, 113 F.3d 1046 (9th
Cir. 1997) (In an involuntary manslaughter
case, the harm must have been foreseeable
within the risk created by the defendant).
United States v. Wicklund, 114 F.3d 151
(10th Cir. 1997) (Murder for hire required a
receipt or promise of pecuniary value).
United States v. Yoakum, 116 F.3d 1346
(10th Cir. 1997) (Defendant’s interest in a
business, and his presence near time of fire,
did not support arson conviction).
United States v. Spruill, 118 F.3d 221 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1006 (1997)
(Insufficient evidence that a threat would be
carried out by fire or explosive).
Smith v. Horn, 120 F.3d 400 (3rd Cir.), cert.
denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) (First degree
murder instruction failed to require specific
intent).
United States v. Bordeaux, 121 F.3d 1187
(8th Cir. 1997) (Jury instruction in an
abusive sexual contact case failed to require
force).
United States v. Estrada-Fernandez, 150
F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 1998) (Simple assault is
lesser included offense of assault with
deadly weapon).
United States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933
(5th Cir. 1999) (Inconclusive
identification did not support bank
robbery conviction).
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227
(1999) (Jury must decide whether
carjacking resulted in serious bodily
injury or death).
United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222
(10th Cir. 2000) (Doctor’s injection of
drug to treat patient did not prove
premeditated murder).
United States v. Shumpert, 210 F.3d
660 (6th Cir. 2000) (Assault without
verbal threat was minor rather than
aggravated).
United States v. Baker, 262 F.3d 124
(2d Cir. 2001) (Instruction allowed
conviction without proving elements of
murder with intent to obstruct justice).
United States v. Peters, 277 F.3d 963
(7th Cir. 2002) (Victim’s intoxication
and disdain for the defendant did not
prove lack of consent to sexual act).
United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58 (2d
Cir. 2002) (Insufficient evidence of
murder during drug conspiracy).
Patterson v. Haskins, 316 F.3d 596 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 90 (2007)
(Instruction on involuntary
manslaughter omitted requirement of
proximate cause).
United States v. Odom, 329 F.3d 1032
(9th Cir. 2003) (Inadvertent display of a
firearm was not armed bank robbery).
Bunkley v. Florida, 538 U.S. 835 2020
(2003) (Legally possessed pocketknife
could not support armed burglary
conviction).
United States v. Hampton, 346 F.3d
813 (8th Cir. 2003) (Losing control of
vehicle was not an intentional assault
on official victim).
United States v. Bellew, 369 F.3d 450
(5th Cir. 2004) (Bank robbery requires
actual intimidation).
United States v. Frampton, 382 F.3d
213 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S.
1037 (2004) (Insufficient evidence of
murder-for-hire).
United States v. Davies, 394 F.3d 182
(3rd Cir. 2005) (Insufficient evidence of
35 Federal Convictions Reversed
arson of church).
United States v. Harris, 420 F.3d 467
(5th Cir. 2005) (No evidence of intent to
kill or harm victim during carjacking).
United States v. Burton, 425 F.3d 1008
(5th Cir. 2005) (Insufficient evidence
that robbery involved a bank).
United States v. Sandles, 469 F.3d 508
(6th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 229
(2007) (Bank investigator did not have
personal knowledge of FDIC insurance).
United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959
(9th Cir. 2008) (Violence in aid of a
racketeering enterprise required more
than an incidental motive to maintain
membership in gang).
United States v. Salgado, 519 F.3d 411
(7th Cir. 2008) (Statute criminalizing
robbing money belonging to the United
States was not violated when victim was
believed to be private actor and he had
no such money).
Assimilative Crimes
United States v. Devenport, 131 F.3d
604 (7th Cir. 1997) (Violation of a state
civil provision was not covered by
Assimilative Crimes Act).
United States v. Sylve, 135 F.3d 680 (9th
Cir. 1998) (Deferred prosecution was
available for charge under Assimilative
Crimes Act).
United States v. Waites, 198 F.3d 1123
(9th Cir. 2000) (Conduct that was
regulated federally should not have been
prosecuted under Assimilative Crimes
Act).
United States v. Provost, 237 F.3d 934
(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 533 U.S. 960
(2001) (Federal government cannot
prosecute state crime occurring on lands
that are no longer in Indian hands).
United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277
(10th Cir. 2001) (Parties could not
stipulate victim was Indian when they
were not).
United States v. Martinez, 274 F.3d 897
(5th Cir. 2001) (Federal sentence that
was three times longer was not like
state sentence).
United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215
(9th Cir. 2005) (Defendant should have
been charged under statute for Indian
Lands).
Miscellaneous Crimes
United States v. Rodriguez, 45 F.3d 302 (9th
Cir. 1995) (Possessing an object designed to
be used as a weapon, while in prison, was a
specific intent crime).
United States v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492
(6th Cir. 1997) (Transmission of e-mail
messages of torture, rape and murder did
not fall within federal statute without public
availability).
United States v. Grigsby, 111 F.3d 806 (11th
Cir. 1997) (Importation of prohibited wildlife
products fell under exceptions to statute).
United States v. Nyemaster, 116 F.3d 827
(9th Cir. 1997) (Insufficient evidence of
being under the influence of alcohol in a
federal park).
United States v. Cooper, 121 F.3d 130 (3rd
Cir. 1997) (Evidence did not support
conviction for tampering with a witness).
United States v. King, 122 F.3d 808 (9th
Cir. 1997) (Crime of mailing threatening
communication required a specific intent to
threaten).
United States v. Valenzeno, 123 F.3d 365
(6th Cir. 1997) (Obtaining a credit report
without permission was not a crime).
United States v. Farrell, 126 F.3d 484 (3rd
Cir. 1997) (Urging a witness to “take the
Fifth” was not witness tampering).
United States v. Rapone, 131 F.3d 188 (D.C.
Cir. 1997) (Evidence was insufficient to
show retaliation).
United States v. Romano, 137 F.3d 677 (1st
Cir. 1998) (Law prohibiting sale of illegally
taken wildlife did not cover the act of
securing guide services for hunting trip).
United States v. Cottman, 142 F.3d 160 (3rd
Cir. 1998) (Government is not a victim
under Victim Witness Protection Act).
United States v. Copeland, 143 F.3d 1439
(11th Cir. 1998) (Government contractor
was not bribed under federal statute).
United States v. Walker, 149 F.3d 238 (3rd
Cir. 1998) (Prison worker was not a
corrections officer).
United States v. Truesdale, 152 F.3d 443
(5th Cir. 1998) (Insufficient evidence of
illegal gambling).
United States v. Davis, 197 F.3d 662
(3rd Cir. 1999). (Insufficient evidence of
obstruction of justice and conspiracy
without proof of knowledge of pending
proceeding).
United States v. Bad Wound, 203 F.3d
1072 (8th Cir. 2000) (Defendant not
liable for acts of coconspirators prior to
entering conspiracy).
United States v. Naiman, 211 F.3d 40
(2d Cir. 2000) (Receipt of the funds is a
jurisdictional element of commercial
bribery).
United States v. Neuhausser, 241 F.3d
460 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
879 (2001) (Insufficient evidence to
support Travel Act conviction).
United States v. Ortlieb, 274 F.3d 871
(5th Cir. 2001) (Obstruction of justice
requires wrongful intent).
United States v. Leveque, 283 F.3d
1098 (9th Cir. 2002) (Lacey Act requires
defendant know taking game was
illegal).
United States v. Mulero–Joubert, 289
F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2002) (For
trespassing, government must prove
defendant had actual or constructive
notice that presence was illegal).
United States v. Cohen, 301 F.3d 152
(3rd Cir. 2002) (Failure to prove agent
intended to obstruct justice by
misappropriating money).
Wallace v. Nash, 311 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.
2002) (Item that was not designed to be
weapon must be used in order for its
possession to be prohibited in a prison).
United States v. Hathaway, 318 F.3d
1001 (10th Cir. 2003) (Assault on
federal officer defines three offenses
and each must be charged separately).
United States v. Murphy, 323 F.3d 102
(3rd Cir. 2003) (Bribery Act does not
criminalize ordinary patronage).
United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d
338 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S.
1160 (2004) (Single act of counterfeiting
did not justify multiple counts of
conviction).
United States v. Lincoln, 403 F.3d 703
36 Federal Convictions Reversed
(9th Cir. 2005) (Predicting the President
would be harmed by others was not a
threat).
Arthur Anderson L.L.P. v. United
States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) (Obstruction
of justice requires proof of conscious
wrongdoing).
United States v. Cassel, 408 F.3d 622
(9th Cir. 2005) (Threat must be intended
as such by speaker).
United States v. Norris, 428 F.3d 907
(9th Cir. 2005) (Evidence of sexual
contact was insufficient when
defendant’s statement was
uncorroborated).
Valdes v. United States, 475 F.3d 1319
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (Search on law
enforcement computer was not official
act for bribery).
United States v. Reddest, 512 F.3d 1067
(8th Cir. 2008) (Evidence of sexual abuse
involving penetration was insufficient).
United States v. Villanueva-Sotelo, 515
F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 2008) (The
aggravated identity theft statute
requires that the government must
prove the defendant actually knew the
identification in question belonged to
someone else).
United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230
(4th Cir. 2008) (False driver's license
offered as identification did not identify
a specific real individual as required to
convict for aggravated identity theft).
United States v. Madera, 528 F.3d 852
(11th Cir. 2008) (It was not a crime to
failure to register as a sex offender
between the time of the statute’s
enactment and the promulgation of
enforcing regulation).
Ineffective Assistance
of Counsel
Esslinger v. Davis, 44 F.3d 1515 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Counsel failed to determine
that the defendant was a habitual
offender before plea).
United States v. Cook, 45 F.3d 388 (10th
Cir. 1995) (Court infringed on counsel’s
professional judgement).
United States v. Hansel, 70 F.3d 6 (2d
Cir. 1995) (Counsel failed to raise
statute of limitations).
Upshaw v. Singletary, 70 F.3d 576 (11th
Cir. 1995) (Claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel at plea was not waived even though
not raised on direct appeal).
United States v. Streater, 70 F.3d 1314
(D.C. 1995) (Counsel gave bad legal advice
about pleading guilty).
Sager v. Maass, 84 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 1996)
(Counsel was found ineffective for not
objecting to inadmissible evidence).
United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078
(9th Cir. 1996) (Prejudice was presumed
when trial counsel was forced to prove his
own ineffectiveness at a hearing).
Baylor v. Estelle, 94 F.3d 1321 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1151 (1997) (Counsel
was ineffective for failing to follow up on lab
reports suggesting that the defendant was
not the rapist).
Huynh v. King, 95 F.3d 1052 (11th Cir.
1996) (Lawyer’s failure to raise a
suppression issue was grounds for remand).
Martin v. Maxey, 98 F.3d 844 (5th Cir.
1996) (Failure to file a motion to suppress
could be grounds for ineffectiveness claim).
United States v. Kauffman, 109 F.3d 186
(3rd Cir. 1997) (Failure to investigate
insanity defense was ineffective assistance
of counsel).
Williamson v. Ward, 110 F.3d 1508 (10th
Cir. 1997) (Failure to investigate the
defendant’s mental illness was ineffective
assistance of counsel).
United States v. Gaviria, 116 F.3d 1498
(D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1082
(1997) (Counsel was ineffective for giving
incorrect sentencing information in
contemplation of plea).
United States v. Taylor, 139 F.3d 924 (D.C.
Cir. 1998) (Counsel was ineffective for
failing to inform client of advice of counsel
defense).
Tejeda v. Dubois, 142 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 1998)
(Counsel’s fear of trial judge hindered
defense).
United States v. Kliti, 156 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.
1998) (Defense counsel who witnessed
exculpatory statement had conflict).
United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154 (9th
Cir. 1999) (Irreconcilable conflict between
defendant and lawyer).
United States v. Alvarez-Tautimez, 160
F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1999) (Counsel
ineffective for failing to withdraw plea
after co-defendant’s suppression motion
granted).
United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d
343 (8th Cir. 1999) (Counsel was
ineffective for failure to challenge
breach of plea agreement).
United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962 (6th
Cir. 2000) (Despite waiver, dual
representation denied effective
assistance of counsel).
Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1035 (2000)
(Counsel failed to object to post arrest
statement, or to investigate defense
expert witness).
United States v. Patterson, 215 F.3d
812 (8th Cir. 2000) (Absences of counsel
during trial denied effective assistance).
United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d 102
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (But for counsel’s
deficient performance, defendant would
not have pled guilty).
Washington v. Hofbauer, 228 F.3d 689
(6th Cir. 2000) (Counsel’s failure to
object to prosecutor’s misconduct was
ineffective assistance).
Cossel v. Miller, 229 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.
2000) (Counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to suggestive in-court
identification).
United States v. Davis, 239 F.3d 283
(2d Cir. 2001) (Counsel was ineffective
by threatening to withhold services to
encourage plea).
Wanatee v. Ault, 259 F.3d 700 (8th Cir.
2001) (Counsel failed to advise client of
affect of felony-murder rule).
Glover v. Miro, 262 F.3d 268 (4th Cir.
2001) (Overworked attorney did not
spend enough time with client).
Burdine v. Johnson, 262 F.3d 336 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1120 (2002)
(Attorney slept through portions of
trial).
Burns v. Gammon, 260 F.3d 892 (8th
Cir. 2001) (Failure to raise objection to
prosecutor’s misconduct during closing
argument).
37 Federal Convictions Reversed
Hunt v. Mitchell, 261 F.3d 575 (6th Cir.
2001) (Defendant denied right to confer
with new counsel ten minutes before
trial).
Magana v. Hofbauer, 263 F.3d 542 (6th
Cir. 2001) (Counsel misinformed
defendant about effect of plea
agreement).
Dixon v. Snyder, 266 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.
2001) (Counsel misunderstood
admissibility of witness statements).
Manning v. Huffman, 269 F.3d 720 (6th
Cir. 2001) (Failure to object to
participation of deliberation by alternate
jurors).
Fisher v. Gibson, 282 F.3d 1283 (10th
Cir. 2002) (Counsel failed to adequately
argue against weak prosecution case).
Haynes v. Cain, 298 F.3d 375 (5th Cir.
2002) (Counsel conceded defendant’s
guilt on several counts over objection).
Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 916 (2003)
(Counsel failed to request diminished
capacity jury instruction).
Catalan v. Cockrell, 315 F.3d 491 (5th
Cir. 2002) (Failure to prepare for trial
and reliance on conflicted counsel).
Mitchell v. Mason, 325 F.3d 732 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1080 (2005)
(Period of pretrial investigation and
consultation is a critical stage of trial).
United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111
(9th Cir. 2003) (Failing to assist client in
cooperation with government can be
ineffective assistance of counsel).
Joshua v. Dewitt, 341 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.
2003) (Failure to challenge probable
cause was ineffective assistance of
counsel).
United States v. Leibach, 347 F.3d 219
(7th Cir. 2003) (Counsel was ineffective
for failing to investigate exculpatory
evidence and not keeping promises made
in opening statement).
Moore v. Bryant, 348 F.3d 238 (7th Cir.
2003) (Counsel gave inaccurate advice to
induce guilty plea).
Reagan v. Norris, 365 F.3d 616 (8th Cir.
2004) (Ineffective assistance of counsel
for failing to object to charge omitting
essential element).
Soffar v. Dretke, 368 F.3d 441 (5th Cir.
2004) (Defense counsel failed to interview
exculpatory witness).
United States v. Levy, 377 F.3d 259 (2d Cir.
2004) (Counsel’s overall performance was
ineffective).
Miller v. Webb, 385 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2004)
(Counsel was ineffective at jury selection).
Owens v. United States, 387 F.3d 607 (7th
Cir. 2004) (Failure to move to suppress
evidence was ineffective).
Turner v. Bagley, 401 F.3d 718 (6th Cir.
2005) (Counsel’s actions caused loss of
ability to appeal).
United States v. Jones, 403 F.3d 604 (8th
Cir. 2005) (Counsel failed to challenge
multiplicitous indictment).
Henry v. Poole, 409 F.3d 48 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied 547 U.S. 1040 (2006) (Counsel
elicited alibi for wrong time period).
Tenny v. Dretke, 416 F.3d 404 (5th Cir.
2005) (Failure to investigate evidence of
self-defense).
Martin v. Grosshans, 424 F.3d 588 (7th
2005) Counsel failed to move for mistrial).
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005)
(Counsel failed to examine file of prior
conviction).
Thomas v. Varner, 428 F.3d 491 (3rd Cir.),
cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 928 (2007) (Counsel
did not move to suppress unreliable
identification).
Rolan v. Vaughn, 445 F.3d 671 (3rd Cir.
2006) (Counsel failed to call self defense
witness).
Virgil v. Dretke, 446 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.
2006) (Counsel failed to challenge potential
jurors who stated they could not be fair).
Adams v. Bertrand, 453 F.3d 428 (7th Cir.
2006) (Failure to locate witness who saw
defendant and alleged victim before sexual
encounter was ineffective).
Dando v. Yukins, 461 F.3d 791 (6th Cir.
2006) (Failure to investigate Battered
Woman’s Syndrome defense was
ineffective).
Stewart v. Wolfenbarger, 468 F.3d 338 (6th
Cir. 2006) (Failure to give notice of alibi and
failure to subpoena witness).
Raygoza v. Hulick, 474 F.3d 958 (7th
Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct 613 (2007)
(Defense counsel's performance was
deficient for failure to investigate alibi).
Thompson v. United States, 504 F.3d
1203 (11th Cir. 2007) (Counsel did not
adequately consult with defendant on
his right to appeal).
Ramonez v. Berghuis, 490 F.3d 482 (6th
Cir. 2007) (Decision not to interview
potential beneficial witnesses was
ineffective).
United States v. Santiago, 495 F.3d 27
(2d Cir. 2007) (Anders brief and letter
were not sufficient notice to illiterate
client).
United States v. Weathers, 493 F.3d
229 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Failure to object to
multiplicious counts was ineffective).
Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487 (7th Cir.
2007) (Counsel’s misstatement of
potential sentence to defendant before
trial was ineffective).
United States v. Mooney, 497 F.3d 397
(4th Cir. 2007) (Failure to spot potential
justification defense for firearm
possession was ineffective).
Bell v. Miller, 500 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.
2007) (Failure to consult medical expert
on eye witness’s ability to perceive was
ineffective).
Girts v. Yanai, 501 F.3d 743 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 92 (2008)
(Counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s
repeated improper comments).
Editor: Alexander Bunin
Federal Public Defender
Northern New York
39 North Pearl Street, 5th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
(518) 436-1850
(518) 436-1780 FAX
alex.bunin@fd.org

DavidFinn