First Circuit -- Alejandro-Martinez v. Ortiz-Vazquez

Simple reassertion of claim not enough to reverse a 12(b)(6) dismissal.  Dismissed with prejudice, and show-cause on award of double costs.

Alejandro-Martinez v. Ortiz-Vazquez

Ninth Circuit -- USA V. MICHAEL SIMARD

Unequivocal assertion of ownership (as distinct from possession) suffices for Article III standing to state a claim in a civil forfeiture case.

USA V. MICHAEL SIMARD

Eighth Circuti -- United States v. Luis Jasso

No confrontation clause error in barring deft from crossing on old priors that would have made the witness subject to habitual offender law, as witness disclaimed knowledge of habitual offender risk.

 No error in introduction of evidence as to brother's priors, as it was within the pendency of what was alleged to be a family conspiracy.

United States  v.  Luis Jasso

Eighth Circuit -- United States v. Ted Grauer

When an expert witness testifies that a crime scenario is rare or nonexistent, trial court correctly held that cross can inquire into three specific instances, but four is more prejudicial than probative.

 Reference in closing to specific examples earlier was properly allowed, as the other side opened the door by casting doubt on possibility.

Sufficient evidence for knowing possession, as images were recoded on deft's computer.

For misrepresentation sentencing bump, specific misrepresentation of age is less important that overall deception.

United States  v.  Ted Grauer

Seventh Circuit -- Timothy Harney v. City of Chicago

No abuse of discretion in introduction of videotape at summary judgement stage where the tape substantially varied from the tape alleged in the complaint, so long as the relevant portions are the same.  No abuse of discretion in ruling on the motion even if the tape is ultimately inadmissable, as the person alleged to have seen the tape was available to testify.

Complaint and ambiguous videotape enough to defeat S1983 false arrest claim.

No curtilage rights in gated path to condo, as it is a shared area.

When resident told police officer to wait at the door and turned and walked down the hall and the police officer followed her, the police entry into the house was consensual, absent her protest.

No error in award of costs.

Timothy Harney v. City of Chicago

Sixth Circuit -- Gary Fields v. Henry County, Tennessee

County requirement that all domestic violence arrestees who are judged to pose a threat to the victim be detained for twelve hours (which, in practice, was extended to all domestic violence arrestees) does not violate 8th Amendment.

Challenging the systematic nature of a bond schedule is a due process claim.

No denial of bail in 12 hour hold - there is no right to speedy bail.

State pretrial hearings requirements are not constitutionally protected liberty interests for purposes of a Due Process claim.

Under Tennessee law, deft must prove feasibility of release on recognizance - bail is the default.

Gary Fields v. Henry County, Tennessee