This case involves Alfred Albrecht's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1980 convictions for first- and second-degree murder and arson, as well as his death sentence, arising from a house fire that killed his wife, mother, and daughter. After earlier proceedings granted relief on a sentencing claim under Mills v. Maryland regarding ambiguous jury instructions on mitigating factors but were vacated following Beard v. Banks on retroactivity grounds, the court addressed the remaining claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the Mills issue on direct appeal. The court found that the claim was not procedurally defaulted, that counsel's performance was deficient under then-existing law from Lockett v. Ohio and related cases, and that prejudice resulted because the claim had a reasonable probability of success. Accordingly, the petition was granted with respect to the sentence, entitling Albrecht to a new sentencing hearing.
This case involved defendant Anthony Mark Bianchi, who faced federal charges including conspiracy and travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minors abroad under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2423. Shortly before trial, the government obtained an arrest warrant for a Moldovan lawyer assisting the defense on witness intimidation charges, which led the lawyer to refuse to travel to the U.S. to testify despite later assurances he faced no risk of arrest; the defense moved for acquittal or a new trial, arguing the government's actions denied the defendant a fair trial. The court denied the motion, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the lawyer's absence because remote video testimony or assistance from abroad could adequately substitute and the lawyer's proposed dual role as witness and advisor was limited by ethical rules and sequestration requirements. The decision applied a prejudice-based test for claims of prosecutorial misconduct interfering with defense witnesses rather than a per se reversal rule.
This case involves a workplace accident in which plaintiff Fernando Martinez suffered the amputation of several fingers while operating a mechanical power press at Laneko Manufacturing, leading to claims of strict liability, negligence, and loss of consortium against the press manufacturer (Ingersoll-Rand) and the light curtain safety device manufacturer (Triad). Plaintiffs alleged defects in the design and function of the press's palm buttons and light curtains, which were intended as point-of-operation safety devices. The court considered motions for summary judgment from Triad and Ingersoll-Rand under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 standards, examining whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding product defects and causation. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, allowing certain strict liability claims to proceed based on evidence that could support findings of defective design or failure to warn.
The case involved federal charges against Patrick Bunty for transporting and possessing child pornography images, stemming from a customs search of his luggage and electronic devices at Philadelphia airport after his return from England, followed by a later residential search warrant. Bunty filed multiple pretrial motions to suppress the seized evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds, quash the indictment, dismiss for alleged spoliation of evidence, and obtain grand jury transcripts, while the government moved to introduce evidence of other crimes under Federal Rules of Evidence 414 and 404(b). The court denied all of Bunty's contested motions and the government's motion, reasoning that the airport search was a valid border search supported by reasonable suspicion, the residential warrant was based on probable cause, and the other-crimes evidence was either irrelevant or unduly prejudicial.
The case concerned whether Stolt-Nielsen breached a corporate leniency agreement with the Antitrust Division by failing to take prompt and effective action to end its participation in a customer-allocation conspiracy with competitors Odfjell and Jo Tankers in the parcel tanker shipping industry. After an evidentiary hearing, the court held that the company did not breach the agreement and dismissed the indictment. The court reasoned that no credible evidence showed the conspiracy continued past March 2002, that Stolt-Nielsen promptly adopted and enforced an antitrust compliance policy upon internal discovery of the conduct, and that it provided full cooperation to the government.
In this case, the government indicted Stolt-Nielsen S.A. and related defendants for participating in a customer allocation conspiracy that violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the company had qualified for and received immunity under the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program after self-reporting and ceasing the anticompetitive conduct. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that Stolt-Nielsen had promptly implemented a comprehensive antitrust compliance policy, ended the collusive practices, and fully cooperated as required by the leniency agreement. The core reasoning was that the Division's later revocation of immunity lacked justification and that due process prevented prosecution under these circumstances.