Friday, July 29, 2011

U.S. v. Spentz, No. 10-10134 (7-28-11)(Clifton with Fernandez and Wallace).

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, drug crimes, and firearm offenses stemming from an undercover operation. The defendant argues that he was entitled to an entrapment instruction. After all, it was the government's undercover agent's plan to rob a supposed stash house. The problem, the 9th identifies, in affirming the convictions, comes from the lack of any evidence of inducement. Sure it was the government's idea, but what induced the defendant to go ahead. The claim that the money from robbery was the inducment fails, because it was the object of the crime.

Greenway v. Schriro, No. 07-99021 (7-28-11)(Schroeder with Rawlinson and Bea).

The 9th remands claims for IAC at trial and on direct appeal for district court consideration. These claims were not procedurally barred because they were presented in the first round of post-conviction (on remand). The state trial court erred in so barring them.

Congratulations to AFPD Therese Day of the FPD Arizona (Phoenix)


Post a Comment

<< Home