Call 24 Hours, 7 Days A Week,  (888) 359-7996
Contact Us

201 West Main Street, Suite B
Lexington, South Carolina 29072

(803) 359-7996
(803) 951-4619 - fax

Email | Directions

Legal News

News

Crime

[05/16] Half-eaten Snickers bar implicates hungry burglar
[05/16] FBI: Ohio man wrote threats because ex left him
[05/16] Ailing fugitive headed back to Md. 43 years later

More...

White Collar Crime

[05/15] SEC charges Broadcom co-founders in options probe

More...

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/16] US v. Williams
In a prosecution for wire fraud and federal funds theft, defendant's conviction is affirmed where: 1) each count of defendant's convictions satisfied the Blockburger test and did not violate the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause; 2) neither the district court's admission of evidence nor its final jury charge constituted error; and 3) sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions. However, the sentence is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual findings did not justify an application of upward adjustments for aggravated role or for abuse of trust.

[05/16] Reese v. Herbert
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for damages wherein plaintiff alleged various claims of police misconduct in arresting him, order denying plaintiff's motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and disallowing an expert witness affidavit is affirmed, but summary judgment for defendant on basis of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the additional utility extracted from reviewing defendants' records and consulting an expert did not justify plaintiff's delay in seeking leave to amend; 2) the expert affidavit was properly excluded, as plaintiff's failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26 was both unjustified and harmful to the defendants; but 3) the district court erred by failing to review the full record on summary judgment and misapplied the legal standards for summary judgment.

[05/14] Justice v. State of Delaware
In an appeal from a conviction for rape-related offenses raising the issue of whether detective-witness's statement about obtaining defendant's date of birth from an "Automated Criminal Justice System" constituted a "prejudicial outburst" warranting a mistrial, the Delaware Supreme Court rules that although the prosecutor's question and detective's answers could have been better phrased, the trial judge's curative instruction rendered any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.