This
round of Ninth Circuit summaries includes (1) a victory for the Innocence
Project on postconviction DNA testing, (2) a decision on the intent requirement
for providing false information on a passport application, and (3) a victory
for a California state prisoner seeking to appeal the denial of his habeas
petition.
1. United States v. Watson, No. 13-30084 (Kleinfeld with O'Scannlain and Berzon) --- The Ninth Circuit held that a defendant is entitled to postconviction DNA testing of evidence that could not be tested at the time of trial. The defendant had been convicted of rape, but testimony at trial was equivocal as to who the perpetrator was (assuming there was a rape at all). There was a DNA sample in the form of semen on the victim's underwear, but it was too small to test at the time of trial in 2006. Now it can be tested, so the defendant brought a motion for postconviction DNA testing. The district court denied the motion because it was presumptively untimely, having been brought more than three years after conviction. But the presumption is rebuttable in the face of newly discovered DNA evidence, and the Ninth Circuit held that "newly discovered" in this context means DNA evidence, the import of which is newly discovered in light of technological advances. The court thus reversed the denial of the motion for DNA testing and remanded for further proceedings.
The decision is here:
2.
United States v. Ye, No.
12-10576 (Friedland with Clifton and NR Smith) --- The Ninth Circuit held that
providing false information on a passport application, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1542, is not a specific-intent crime, and thus affirmed a conviction
because the jury instructions were proper.
3. Foley v. Biter, No. 12-17724 (Christen with Schroeder and DW Nelson) --- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a California state prisoner's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), holding that counsel had abandoned the petitioner, thereby preventing a timely appeal from the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition.
1. United States v. Watson, No. 13-30084 (Kleinfeld with O'Scannlain and Berzon) --- The Ninth Circuit held that a defendant is entitled to postconviction DNA testing of evidence that could not be tested at the time of trial. The defendant had been convicted of rape, but testimony at trial was equivocal as to who the perpetrator was (assuming there was a rape at all). There was a DNA sample in the form of semen on the victim's underwear, but it was too small to test at the time of trial in 2006. Now it can be tested, so the defendant brought a motion for postconviction DNA testing. The district court denied the motion because it was presumptively untimely, having been brought more than three years after conviction. But the presumption is rebuttable in the face of newly discovered DNA evidence, and the Ninth Circuit held that "newly discovered" in this context means DNA evidence, the import of which is newly discovered in light of technological advances. The court thus reversed the denial of the motion for DNA testing and remanded for further proceedings.
The decision is here:
The defendant, a Chinese citizen,
traveled to Saipan with her husband and then overstayed her visa in order to
give birth to her second child on U.S. soil and presumably to avoid the Chinese
one-child policy. The child was then
entitled to a U.S. passport, but the law required both parents either to ask
for it in person, or one parent to provide the notarized statement of consent
from the other parent. She appeared at a
passport office with her brother-in-law, who pretended to be the child's
father. Charged with making a false
statement on a passport application, she argued at trial that this was a
specific-intent crime and that the jury should be required to find a specific
intent to violate the immigration laws of the United States. The trial court refused this instruction, and
the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Because the
Supreme Court had held that the related crime of using a passport obtained by a
false statement did not require specific intent, see Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335 (1941), the Ninth
Circuit held that this crime also did not require specific intent to violate
the immigration laws.
The decision is here:
3. Foley v. Biter, No. 12-17724 (Christen with Schroeder and DW Nelson) --- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a California state prisoner's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), holding that counsel had abandoned the petitioner, thereby preventing a timely appeal from the denial of his § 2254 habeas petition.
The petitioner is serving a life
sentence without the possibility of parole for murder, imposed by a California
state court. He filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus through counsel, but counsel forgot that he represented
the petitioner. The district court
denied the petition, but counsel did not notify the petitioner. Six years after the denial and nine years after
filing the petition, the petitioner inquired of the status of his case, both
with the court and with counsel. Counsel
provided a declaration explaining that he had forgotten about his
representation of the petitioner and therefore did not notify him about the
denial, which the petitioner submitted to the district court in conjunction
with a request to revive the case so that he could appeal. The district court found no attorney
abandonment and denied the motion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. The declaration was adequate proof that
counsel had abandoned the petitioner.
And once he learned that his petition was denied, the petitioner had
made reasonable efforts to determine what relief was available to him and
actually sought that relief. The district
court thus abused its discretion to find that the petitioner had not acted
within a "reasonable time" under Rule 60(b)(6).
The decision is here:
posted by Jon Sands at 7/20/2015 10:45:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home