Thursday, November 03, 2005

Notash v. Gonzales, No. 03-72116 (11-2-05). In an immigration ruling, the 9th holds that a conviction of for attempted entry of goods by means of false statement under 18 USC 542 is not a crime of moral turpitude for purposes of the INA. Although the first paragraph of 542 requires false or fraudulent means, the second paragraph has no false or fraudulent requirement, only requiring a "wilful act or omission" that results in loss. That distinction is key here, where a categorical approach, even a modified one, does not reveal which section the petitioner was convicted under.

Daniels v. Woodford, No. 02-99002 (11-2-05). The 9th grants a new trial to petitioner, who was on death row for the 1984 slaying of two police officers. The 9th finds that his sixth amendment right to counsel was violated because of a series of court rulings, including that his first public defender was dealing with the county atty's office for a job (which he got) at the same time that he was discussing a deal with defendant; that a lawyer petitioner wanted not allowed to represent him; that conflicts were recognized by the court nine months after the case started, and the lawyer then appointed to represent petitioner was a career prosecutor who had just started a criminal defense practice, but had never done any criminal defense. Add to this a short period to get ready (3 mos), and the mental problems of defendant, including that he is a paraplegic and is paranoid, the 9th found that he was constructively deprived of counsel.


Anonymous Anonymous said...


I'm an editorial writer for the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the town where the two cops were killed. I wonder if you could share with me your opinions on the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in this case. Do you agree with their logic? Are they off-base? Will they be overturned?

I hope you can help me. My email is:

Jim Lakely
The Press-Enterprise

Thursday, November 03, 2005 2:39:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home