Source: http://ranchocabron.com/harmfulerror/2010/11/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:31:14+00:00

Document:
This morning the Court issued an opinion in Abbott v. United States and Gould v. United States. The Court held that a federal defendant is subject to the highest mandatory minimum specified for his conduct in 18 USC 924(c) unless another statute directed to conducted prohibited by 924(c) specifically imposes a greater mandatory minimum sentence. The opinion was authored by Justice Ginsburg for a unanimous court.
The Court granted certiorari in Tolentino v. New York. The case concerns the Exclusionary Rule and DMV records.
The Court also granted certiorari in Fowler v. United States. The case concerns the federal death penalty and whether the Government presented sufficient evidence that the defendant committed murder with the intent to prevent a person from communicating information about a federal offense to a federal law enforcement officer or judge of the United States.
Briefs and lower court opinions are available at Scotusblog.
This is an appeal from a Carson City district court order granting a motion to dismiss an inmate's lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Eduardo Lopez, an inmate at the Ely State Prison, brought a tort action alleging that the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) was negligent in failing to follow its policies and procedures by housing Lopez with a known enemy, Jeffery Troxel. Lopez allegedly sustained injuries caused by Troxel during an altercation in their shared cell on June 29, 2006. According to NDOC's inmate grievance procedure, an inmate must initiate an informal grievance involving personal injury within six months of when the claim arises. Lopez filed an informal inmate grievance on March 10, 2007, more than six months after the alleged claim arose. The NDOC rejected the grievance as being untimely. Lopez filed a first-level grievance on April 2, 2007, and it also was rejected as being untimely. Lopez never filed a second-level grievance. Lopez filed a civil complaint against the NDOC in the district court on June 24, 2008. The district court dismissed Lopez's lawsuit on the basis that Lopez failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to initiating a state tort action. Lopez appeals. ISSUES: Did the district court err in granting the NDOC's motion to dismiss due to Lopez's failure to exhaust administrative remedies? Does NRS 209.243(1) violate equal protection by restricting a prisoner's right to file a personal injury administrative claim within six months of the date of the injury, while non-prisoners may file such an action within two years of the injury? Is the precedent set forth in Turner v. Staggs, 89 Nev. 230, 510 P.2d 879 (1973), still controlling law in Nevada?
This is Deljuan Goodlow's appeal of his judgment of conviction, entered after a Washoe County jury found him guilty, for first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, home invasion, and burglary. The underlying incident began when Carolyn Van Loock and Royce Riley were staying at the Lido Inn in Reno during a trip from California and witnessed two men arguing. After seeing a gun, they went inside their motel room. Frank Smith and Deljuan Goodlow broke the couple's motel room window, attempted to kick down the door, and shot Riley, while Van Loock hid in the bathroom. Riley died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Security cameras from a neighboring property recorded some of the incident. Smith and Goodlow fled from the Lido Inn in a black car. Police searched for the black car and eventually found it, although no one was inside. Officers saw blood both inside and outside the car and then found Goodlow nearby, with cuts on his arm and the keys to the car in his possession. The police arrested Goodlow and showed him the surveillance video that recorded the incident. Goodlow admitted that he was in the recording. Over Goodlow's objection, the district court ruled that his case and Smith's should be tried together. During jury selection, the district court judge commented on the "horrible" crimes and referred to notorious historical figures. When Goodlow moved for a mistrial due to the statements, the district court denied the motion. The defendants also objected, under Batson v. Kentucky, to the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential minority jurors, but the district court denied the defendants' objection. After a seven-day trial, the jury convicted Goodlow, and the district court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole. ISSUES: Did the district court abuse its discretion in joining Goodlow's and Smith's cases? Do the district court judge's comments during jury selection require this court to reverse Goodlow's conviction? Did the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude potential minority jurors during jury selection violate Batson v. Kentucky? Was there sufficient evidence to support Goodlow's convictions for burglary and first-degree murder?
In this case, Frank Smith is appealing his judgment of conviction, entered after a Washoe County jury found him guilty, for first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, home invasion, and burglary. The underlying incident began when Carolyn Van Loock and Royce Riley were staying at the Lido Inn in Reno during a trip from California and witnessed two men arguing. After seeing a gun, they went inside their motel room. Frank Smith and Deljuan Goodlow broke the couple's motel room window, attempted to kick down the door, and shot Riley, while Van Loock hid in the bathroom. Riley died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Security cameras from a neighboring property recorded some of the incident. Smith and Goodlow fled from the Lido Inn in a black car. Police searched for the black car and eventually found it, although no one was inside. Officers saw blood both inside and outside the car and located Goodlow nearby, with cuts on his arm and the keys to the car in his possession. After the police arrested him, Goodlow identified Smith as being involved. Smith was eventually extradited from California. During the seven-day joint trial, Goodlow testified on his own behalf, while Smith chose to remain silent. A jury convicted both men of first-degree murder, home invasion, and burglary. The district court sentenced Smith to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an equal consecutive term for the use of a deadly weapon. Smith now appeals. ISSUES: Did the district court err by failing to sever Smith's trial? Does Smith's conviction rest on insufficient evidence? Should this court overrule its prior opinion in State v. District Court (Pullin), 124 Nev. 564, 188 P.3d 1079 (2008)?
In Schuck v. Signature Flight Support, a 3-judge panel (Justices Hardesty, Douglas and Pickering), issues a decision, authored by Justice Pickering, which affirms the grant of summary judgment in a case involving damage to an airplane. The Court also finds that the district court erred in awarding the plaintiff's original lawyers, who withdrew, judgment for unpaid fees and costs.
This is the Court's 42nd opinion of the year.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.