• Range v. Attorney Gen. United States of Am.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-10
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Hardiman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: William V. Bergstrom, Peter A. Patterson, David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk, Washington, DC; Michael P. Gottlieb, Vangrossi & Recchuiti, Norristown, PA for appellant.
    for defendant: Brian M. Boynton, Jacqueline C. Romero, Mark B. Stern, Michael S. Raab, Abby C. Wright, Kevin B. Soter, United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC for appellees.

    Case Number: 21-2835

    Federal felon-in-possession statute barring person convicted of false statements under state law was inconsistent with nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.

  • Bass v. State

    Publication Date: 2023-07-03
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Valihura
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick J. Collins, Collins & Price, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: Brian Arban, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: 218, 2022

    Errors in microscopic hair comparison forensic testimony did not compel postconviction relief where the errors did not exculpate defendant and the state presented other substantial evidence of defendant's guilt.

  • State v. Holmes

    Publication Date: 2023-06-27
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel B. McBride, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Robert M. Gamburg, Gamburg & Benedetto LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Brian J. Chapman, Law Office of Brian J. Chapman, Newark, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2203012514

    Search warrant was supported by probable cause where police obtained various articulable facts indicating that an apartment and storage unit were used by defendant for stashing drugs, with that suspicion confirmed by a non-Fourth Amendment canine sniff.

  • United States v. Evridiki Navigation Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-06-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry: Cargo and Shipping | Federal Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Phipps
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-2032

    District court properly convicted shipping companies for falsification of environmental records where circumstantial evidence indicated that multiple crew members participated in the cover-up, indicating that it was done at least in part to serve corporate interests.

  • State v. Mason

    Publication Date: 2023-04-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Johnston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominic A. Carrera, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Thomas A. Foley, Wilmington, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: 2207004139

    Court granted suppression motion where search warrant was based solely on the uncorroborated implicating statements of an accomplice.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Library of Pennsylvania Family Law Forms, Fourth Edition

    Authors: Joseph S. Britton

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • State v. Santiago

    Publication Date: 2023-03-28
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Primos
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen R. Welch, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Suzanne Macpherson-Johnson, Office of Defense Services, Dover, DE for defendant.

    Case Number: D70176

    Court invoked doctrine of jury lenity to allow operating vehicle causing death conviction to stand despite jury's failure to reach verdict on inattentive driving charge where the statute did not expressly require a conviction under the motor vehicle code and the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.

  • Gregory v. State

    Publication Date: 2023-03-21
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: E. Calvin Harmon Jr., Brett Bendistis Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: David C. Skoranski, Delaware Department of State, Wilmington, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: 1909016095(N)

    Court affirmed official misconduct conviction where evidence demonstrated that former city council president used his office to direct public funds to his non-profit entity.

  • Coleman v. State

    Publication Date: 2023-01-17
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Seitz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick J. Collins, Collins & Price, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: John R. Williams, Delaware Dep’t of Justice, Dover, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: 83, 2022

    The court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment of conviction on the basis that the trial court properly denied defendant's request to issue a jury instruction informing the jury that the police officer's failure to properly annotate the location of evidence in a backpack constituted "missing evidence" under the Lolly/Deberry line of cases.

  • United States v. Hurd

    Publication Date: 2022-12-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Krause
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1084

    The court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying appellant's motion for compassionate release.

  • State v. Galindez

    Publication Date: 2022-12-13
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Rennie
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1712008053

    Motion for postconviction relief failed where defendant could not show that newly discovered eyewitness with testimony supporting a claim of self-defense would have altered the outcome of the trial as such testimony did not establish defendant's actual innocence, particularly where the testimony could not explain why defendant continued to use force and robbed the victim.