ilities Act (ADA).Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the presence, in an otherwise removable case, of an Eleventh Amendment barred claim does not destroy the removal jurisdiction that would otherwise exist.United States v. Bajakajian The United States Supreme Court held (5-4) that full forfeiture of an unreported $357,144 which was found on the defendant's person when he attempted to leave the United States was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the amount of forfeiture must bear some relation to the gravity of the offense that it was designed to punish, and respondent's only offense was a failure to report the possession of the money.Caron v. United States The United States Supreme Court held (6-3) that a state handgun prohibition on a person convicted of a serious offense activates the uniform federal ban on possessing any firearms at all by certain felons under 18 USC s 921(a)(20)Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott The United States Supreme Court held (5-4) that the federal exclusionary rule does not bar the introduction at parole revocation hearings of evidence seized in violation of parolees' Fourth Amendment rights, and the State's use of such evidence does not itself violate the Constitution.CAPITAL CASESBarber v. Johnson Fifth Circuit holds, inter alia, that "the penalty phase testimony by Dr. Clay Griffith relating to the future dangerousness issue violated his fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights, as well as the rules of Estelle v. Smith( and Satterwhite v. Texas. . . . his competency examination of Barber prior to trial Dr. Griffith gave no Miranda warnings, nor did he obtain consent of Barber's counsel for the examination" -- did not warrant relief and certificate of probable cause must be deniedHabeasNeely v. Newton Tenth Circuit denies habeas relief on claims that "(1) New Mexico's GBMI statute deprives a mentally ill defend

State v. Frank J. Kosina, 226 Wis.2d 482, 595 N.W.2d 464 (Ct. App. 1999) For Kosina: Daniel F. SnyderHolding: Guilty plea defendant need not be advised of permanent prohibition on firearms possession flowing from 18 USCA §§ 921 & 921, for conviction “of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because it is a collateral consequence of the plea.

U.S. v. Whitehead, 2005 WL 2422484 (10th Cir. 10/3/05) - Mr. Whitehead pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the time of his offense, the firearm he was convicted of possessing fell within the 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) definition of a "semiautomatic assault weapon." Shortly before his sentencing, however, that § was repealed.

It held that Wyoming waived its Tenth Amendment argument by not reasserting it on appeal. On the merits of the Wyoming law, which purports to set aside or expunge convictions for the purpose of restoring lost firearms rights, the Tenth determined that the ATF's interpretation that federal law governed definition of "expunge" for purposes of 18 USC 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) and that the Wyoming law did not meet the federal definition was not arbitrary and capricious. The Tenth, in upholding the ATF's position, concluded that § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) requires the complete removal of all effects of a prior conviction to constitute either an expungement or a set aside for purposes of restoring federal firearms rights.

State v. Joseph E. Koll, Jr., 2009 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/29/09 For Koll: Alexander L. UllenbergIssue: Whether Koll’s conviction of so-called “non-domestic” disorderly conduct was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), so as to preclude him from obtaining a handgun.Holding: The federal Gun Control Act bars gun possession to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(33), and because the charging documents describe a “domestic” relationship between Koll and the victim the gun disqualification is established.A disqualifying misdemeanor conviction has two separate components, 1) violence in 2) a “domestic” relationship.

Joseph E. Koll, Jr v. Dept of Justice., 2009 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/29/09 For Koll: Alexander L. UllenbergIssue: Whether Koll’s conviction of so-called “non-domestic” disorderly conduct was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), so as to preclude him from obtaining a handgun.Holding: The federal Gun Control Act bars gun possession to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(33), and because the charging documents describe a “domestic” relationship between Koll and the victim the gun disqualification is established.A disqualifying misdemeanor conviction has two separate components, 1) violence in 2) a “domestic” relationship.

In Nebraska legislative debate in that unicameral legislature is intensifying on lethal injection (as its current method, electrocution, has been judicially banned) whether to limit or repeal the death penaltyAs always, thanks for reading. - k Recent ExecutionsFebruary3 Willie Pondexter - Tex*4 Kenneth Morris - Tex*Pending ExecutionsMarch10 Robert Newland - Ga*10 James Martinez - Tex*11 Luis Salazar - Tex*13 Cal Brown Wash*19 Phillip Hallford - Ala*April1 Richard Boxley - Penn7 Brett Hartman - Ohio*7 Jose Briseno - Tex*7 Michael Rimmer - Tenn*15 Michael Rosales - Tex*16 Jimmy Lee Dill - Ala*30 Derrick Johnson - Tex*May5 Donald Gilson - Okla*14 Willie McNair - Ala** "serious" execution date / (s) stay believed likely / (V) Volunteer [Sources include: DPIC, Rick Halperin & press accounts]SCOTUSUnited States v. Hayes, No. 07-608 (2/24/2009) Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 921 is affirmed, where a domestic relationship between the offender and victim need not be an element of the defendant's "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to trigger Section 921's possession ban." [via Findlaw](Initial List)Week of March 2, 2009 – In Favor of the Defendant or the CondemnedEarl J. McGahee v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS ---- (11th Cir 3/4/2009 ) Relief granted in light of Batson. "

The Supreme Court has resolved a issue relating to qualifying convictions for firearm possession prohibitions post-conviction. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §921 et seq., has long prohibited possession of a firearm by any person convicted of a felony. In 1996, Congress extended the prohibition to include persons convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

In Nebraska legislative debate in that unicameral legislature is intensifying on lethal injection (as its current method, electrocution, has been judicially banned) whether to limit or repeal the death penaltyAs always, thanks for reading. - kRecent ExecutionsFebruary3 Willie Pondexter - Tex*4 Kenneth Morris - Tex*Pending ExecutionsMarch10 Robert Newland - Ga*10 James Martinez - Tex*11 Luis Salazar - Tex*13 Cal Brown Wash*19 Phillip Hallford - Ala*April1 Richard Boxley - Penn7 Brett Hartman - Ohio*7 Jose Briseno - Tex*7 Michael Rimmer - Tenn*15 Michael Rosales - Tex*16 Jimmy Lee Dill - Ala*30 Derrick Johnson - Tex*May5 Donald Gilson - Okla*14 Willie McNair - Ala** "serious" execution date / (s) stay believed likely / (V) Volunteer [Sources include: DPIC, Rick Halperin & press accounts]SCOTUSUnited States v. Hayes, No. 07-608 (2/24/2009) Defendant's conviction for possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. section 921 is affirmed, where a domestic relationship between the offender and victim need not be an element of the defendant's "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to trigger Section 921's possession ban." [via Findlaw](Initial List)Week of March 2, 2009 – In Favor of the Defendant or the CondemnedEarl J. McGahee v. Alabama Dept. of Corrections, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS ---- (11th Cir 3/4/2009 ) Relief granted in light of Batson. "

Matter of Mendez-Orellana, 25 I&N Dec. at 254-55. Section 237(a)(2)(C) explicitly relies on the definition of “firearm” located at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a). In turn, § 921(a)(3) states that the term “firearm” “does not include an antique firearm.”