Federal Law & Legal System – Page 156 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: When Is It a Crime to Stuff the Drawing Box?

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:April 25, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Federal Criminal Law & Process Seventh Circuit

In April 2005, the Ho-Chunk casino in Baraboo, Wisconsin, sponsored a drawing in which one lucky winner would receive $10,000. The rules of the drawing identified a number of ways that participants could obtain entry forms, with each new entry increasing a participant’s odds of winning. Two participants, however, chose to circumvent the prescribed processes by photocopying thousands of entry forms and stuffing the drawing box. By the time of the drawing, Darwin Moore and Bruce Knutson had their names on more than sixty percent of the entry forms. Knutson won the drawing, but then faced federal criminal charges, thanks to snitching by Moore’s ex-girlfriend. Eventually, Moore and Knutson were both convicted of theft from an Indian gaming establishment, and each received a ten-month sentence.

On appeal, the two defendants argued that the indictment was insufficient because it failed to state an offense. They observed that the drawing rules did not expressly prohibit the submission of photocopied forms and asserted that they were merely exploiting a loophole, rather than committing a crime. The Seventh Circuit, however, affirmed their convictions in United States v. Moore (Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615) (Evans, J.).

Supreme Court Determines That Traditional Stay Continues to Be Available to Aliens Appealing from Removal Orders

Post author:Jessica E. Slavin
Post published:April 22, 2009
Post category:Federal Law & Legal System Human Rights Immigration Law Legal Writing U.S. Supreme Court

As I blogged about previously, in January the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Nken v. Holder, which raised the question of whether the 1996 amendments to judicial review provisions that removed the automatic stay of deportation pending appeal had replaced the automatic stay with a traditional stay standard or a heightened, extremely restrictive standard, one that almost never would allow a stay.

Today, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Roberts, the Court announced its decision in favor of the alien, determining that the disputed 1996 statutory provision did not take away the appellate courts’ traditional stay power in appeals pending deportation.

Beach Reading?

Post author:Daniel Suhr
Post published:April 20, 2009
Post category:Judges & Judicial Process Speakers at Marquette U.S. Supreme Court

Apparently the news editors at the Los Angeles Times read the Marquette Law Review. That’s at least one possible conclusion one could draw from the juxtaposition of two recently published items.

Dean Kearney is in a unique place to analyze the relationship between the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, having clerked for judges on both courts. Introducing Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s Hallows Lecture one year ago, Dean Kearney noted,

Over the past couple of decades, Judge O’Scannlain has emerged as a leader on the Ninth Circuit. This includes the court’s most important work, its cases, where Judge O’Scannlain plays an unusually important role not only in his own docket but also in the court’s en-banc process. An O’Scannlain dissent from denial of en-banc rehearing frequently gets some attention across the country — in Washington, D.C.

Lo and behold, this past Sunday the Los Angeles Times carried a story highlighting how conservatives on the Ninth Circuit use dissents from denial of en-banc rehearing to send “a signal flare to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Carol Williams’ report gives particular attention to Judge O’Scannlain: