Wednesday, June 30, 2010
In an appeal Batson argued that only the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA) and the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) authorized restitution as a condition of supervised release.
The Ninth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(2), which grants federal courts broad discretion to order restitution as a condition of probation, and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), which extends that grant to supervised release, authorizes federal courts to order restitution as a condition of supervised release for any criminal offense, including those set forth in Title 26 (the IRS code), for which supervised release is properly imposed.
However, the Court concluded that Batson’s restitution had to be limited to the loss sustained by the government caused by the crimes she was convicted for. Because her crime did not involve a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, as she plead to one count of preparing fraudulent returns, the restitution imposed as a condition of probation was limited to the loss pertaining to that count.
The case is: United States v. Batson, 9th Cir; June 21, 2010; 09-50238
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The 9th circuit court of appeals ruled on June 16th that securities brokers must disclose material information regarding a stock purchase if the broker has a fiduciary relationship with a client.
Hampton Porter Investment Bankers, LLC, became involved in a “pump and dump” scheme that resulted in “bonus commissions” for sales of “house stocks.” “House stocks” are those that were granted to Hampton Porter for either extremely discounted prices or for free and then driven up in price when clients were pressured into purchasing them, strongly discouraged from selling them, or simply ignored when clients made sales orders.
According to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, it is illegal to use any manipulative or deceptive device in connection with a purchase. Rule 10b-5 states that it is illegal to “defraud, to make any untrue statement of, or omit to state, a material fact, or to engage in any course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon another in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.”
The court found that the overall “pump and dump” scheme was a separate violation of Rule 10b-5 from failure to disclose bonus commissions. Additionally, the Brokers’ failure to disclose was circumstantial evidence of their agreement to be part of this conspiracy.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Evidence provided by Greg Anderson, a trainer to Barry Bonds, was affirmed as inadmissible hearsay by the 9th Circuit on Friday, June 11th.
In order to successfully convict Bonds on multiple counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, the government needed to prove that blood and urine samples were Bonds’s.
The district court first considered the admissibility of
The court next considered whether
Judge Bea disagreed with the court’s rulings that
The case is United States v. Bonds, 09-10079.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
California Supreme Court Grants Review on Penal Code Section 4019 (custody credits) and the Issue of Retroactivity
The lead case on the issue is People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354 (S181963), in which the Third District had held that the amendment must be applied retroactively to qualifying appellants whose cases were not final on appeal on the date of the statute's enactment.
People v. Rodriguez (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 535, the first case to hold the amendment applies prospectively only, was also granted review. (See S181808.) But briefing in that case is being deferred pending consideration and disposition of Brown.
Although neither of these two cases can be cited as authority any longer because of the grant of review, there remain eight more published cases discussing the issue. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.