Unjustified Shackling of Defendant Does Not Undermine Fair Trial

A defendant has the burden to prove prejudice by showing that the jury saw their shackles when they were unjustifiably shackled during trial.

State v. Brawley, 2016 BL 179698, S.C., No. SC 19441, 6/14/16.

   The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must show that the jury saw his shackles during trial to establish prejudice during the trial, even if the shackling was unjustified. The defendant, although charged with multiple violent crimes, was not a flight risk or subject to behavioral issues that posed a danger, not necessitating shackles.

   The defendant argued that the State had the obligation to prove that the jury did not see the shackles because the record was silent on the issue, but the court disagreed. The court noted the practice of the judge in placing a curtain around the defense table so the jury cannot see the prisoner’s legs in addition to having the defendant seated before the jury leaves or enters the courtroom favored the state in that the burden is placed on the defendant.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Brawley_No_SC_19441_2016_BL_179698_Conn_June_14_2016_Cour.

Harder to 'Aid and Abet' in 1st Circuit.

Prosecutors are required to show that the defendant knew that the situation was such that the principal's conduct was illegal.

United States v. Ford, 2016 BL 115513, 1st Cir., No. 15-1303, 4/13/16

     The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that just because a woman had "reason to know" that her husband was convicted of a felony years earlier, she cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting her husband's illegal possession of a firearm.

     Other Circuits have applied a lower level of mens rea to prove aiding and abetting, but the First Circuit said that the government must prove "actual knowledge." The court looked at the language in 18 U.S.C. § 2, which uses the words "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures," suggesting that a person can only violate the statute with full knowledge and choice.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Ford_No_151303_2016_BL_115513_1st_Cir_Apr_13_2016?1463410334

Medical Marijuana License As Possible Defense to DUI

Lawful users of medical marijuana are not automatically guilty of DUI, but they bear the burden of proving that the concentration of the drug in their system was insufficient to cause impairment.

 

Dobson v. McClennan, 2015 BL 382797, Ariz., No. CV-14-0313-PR, 11/20/15

 

    The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that lawful users of medical marijuana are not automatically guilty of DUI. The court did say that the patients bear the burden of proving that the concentration of the drug in their system was insufficient to cause impairment.

 

    The court did not accept the defendant's claim that it was not fair to put the burden on them because there is not a medically accepted threshold of marijuana impairment. Here, the court said, "[t]he risk of uncertainty in this regard should fall on the patients, who generally know, or should know if they are impaired and can control when they drive, rather than on the members of the public whom they encounter on our streets."

 

 http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Dobson_v_McClennen_No_CV140313PR_2015_BL_382797_Ariz_Nov_20_2015_?1451411924

Testimony is Sufficient to Satisfy Jurisdictional Hook in Bribery Case

Bribery conviction upheld because witness testified to federal fund element of crime 'without equivocation.'

 

United States v. Smith, 2015 BL 350270, 5th Cir., No. 14-60688, 10/23/15

 

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), it is a crime for an agent of a local government, organization, or agency to solicit or accept a bribe if the entity "receives, in any one year period, benefits in excess of $10,000 under a Federal program."

 

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit looked to United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2013), in which a city clerk was able to testify 'without equivocation' that the amount of federal funds received by the city engaged the federal jurisdictional hook. The court here stated that "[the clerk's] testimony alone was sufficient to support a finding that the federal funds element was met."

 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Smith_No_1460688_2015_BL_350270_5th_Cir_Oct_23_20?1449074265