Latest 3 Cases: United States v. Dominguez (Criminal Law), Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr (Immigration Law), Omar Flores v. Godfrey (Immigration Law)

Why People Dislike the Insanity Defense

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the insanity defense, considering when and why juries (and others) might perceive a criminal defendant to be not guilty by reason of insanity. Colb proposes that if a criminal defendant’s mental illness looks like an outside force that made him behave in an out-of-character fashion, then the jury is more likely to find him not guilty by reason of insanity.

Read More

United States v. Dominguez

Docket: 14-10268

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Barry G. Silverman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Ninth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of attempted Hobbs Act robbery. In this case, the evidence overwhelmingly showed that defendant had the specific intent to commit the robbery and had taken a "substantial step" toward its completion − arming himself with a handgun and driving to within about a block of the planned robbery with his accomplice, turning around only because he got ensnared in the fake crime scene. In light of recent Supreme Court cases, the panel reiterated its previous holding that Hobbs Act armed robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A). The panel also held that when a substantive offense is a crime of violence under section 924(c)(3)(A), an attempt to commit that offense is also a crime of violence. The panel agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that attempted Hobbs Act armed robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of section 924(c) because its commission requires proof of both the specific intent to complete a crime of violence, and a substantial step actually (not theoretically) taken toward its completion. The panel reversed defendant's conviction of money laundering in Count Four and affirmed the remainder of the judgment.

Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr

Docket: 18-16465

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Milan D. Smith

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Plaintiffs, representatives of a certified class of aliens who are subject to final orders of removal and are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) within the Ninth Circuit, filed suit challenging their prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction requiring the Government to provide each class member detained for six months or longer with a bond hearing before an immigration judge where the burden is on the Government to justify continued detention. The panel held that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their section 1231(a)(6) statutory claim. Although the panel recognized some tension between Diouf v. Napolitano and Jennings v. Rodriguez, it cannot conclude that the decisions are so fundamentally inconsistent that it can no longer apply Diouf II without running afoul of Jennings. Therefore, the panel held that it remains bound by Diouff II. The panel also held that the district court did not err in relying on Diouf II's construction of section 1231(a)(6) to require a bond hearing before an IJ after six months of detention for an alien whose release or removal is not imminent. The panel held that, because Jennings did not invalidate its constitutional due process holding in Singh v. Holder, the district court also properly required the Government to bear a clear and convincing burden of proof at such a bond hearing to justify an alien's continued detention. The panel rejected the Government's remaining challenges and held that the preliminary injunction complies with a proper reading of Clark v. Martinez.

Omar Flores v. Godfrey

Docket: 18-35460

Opinion Date: April 7, 2020

Judge: Milan D. Smith

Areas of Law: Immigration Law

Plaintiffs, representatives of a certified class of aliens with final removal orders who are placed in withholding-only removal proceedings and who are detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) in the Western District of Washington, filed suit challenging their detention. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and permanent injunction insofar as they conform to its construction of section 1231(a)(6) in Diouf v. Napolitano. The panel also affirmed insofar as the judgment and permanent injunction require the Government to the satisfy the constitutional burden of proof it identified in Singh v. Holder. However, unlike Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, decided on the same day, this appeal presented the panel with a different question regarding its construction of section 1231(a)(6). The panel held that the district court erroneously imposed the requirement that the Government provide class members with additional bond hearings as a statutory matter, because the panel did not construe section 1231(a)(6) as requiring this in Diouf II, nor does it find any support for this requirement. Therefore, the panel reversed in part, and vacated the judgment and permanent injunction, remanding for further proceedings.