« Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court holds that a defendant can be guilty as an accomplice even if the principal does not act “knowingly or intentionally” | Main | Ind. Courts - Huntington Circuit Court Mark McIntosh won't seek another term as judge »

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues five opinions today

No Indiana-based appeals today.

Murray v. GMAC Mortgage deals with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and GMACM's effort to avoid class certification.

Downey S&L Assoc v. Comdisco Inc is a bankruptcy case.

USA v. Hawk begins with this intro from Judge Wood:

Between the appearance of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in which the Supreme Court found that Washington state’s sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment, and that of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), in which the Court extended Blakely’s holding to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the federal sentencing world was in limbo. No one knew whether the Court would distinguish the Guidelines from the state law it had considered in Blakely, scrap the Guidelines altogether, or come up with some intermediate ruling. This case concerns a sentence imposed during this period of uncertainty. Although the district court was remarkably prescient and predicted the outcome of Booker by treating the Guidelines as merely advisory, it moved a little too quickly through Quill R. Hawk’s sentencing hearing. The court accepted the recommendation in Hawk’s Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) of a 121-month term, but it failed to make the findings of fact necessary to support that sentence. This omission prevents us from assessing the reasonableness of the sentence; we therefore vacate Hawk’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
In Johal, Robin v. Little Lady Foods, Judge Evans concluded:
Thus, we conclude that Johal has fallen short of showing complains was due to her “race, color, or national origin.” Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
USA v. Dawson, Pierre - Here, Judge Posner writes re a peition for rehearing, "the government is concerned about the possible stare decisis effect of the passage and wants us to delete or modify it. He concludes:
This is not to suggest that every question a lawyer might want to ask about a third party’s opinion of the credibility of a witness would be proper cross-examination. It is to suggest only that such questions are outside the scope of Rule 608(b). * * *

The important point is that the decision whether to allow a witness to be cross-examined about a judicial determination finding him not to be credible is confided to the discretion of the trial judge; it is not barred by Rule 608(b), which, to repeat, is a rule about presenting extrinsic evidence, not about asking questions.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 17, 2006 01:25 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions