The Second Circuit referred a New York attorney for punishment Tuesday for submitting a brief citing a fake case generated by ChatGPT and not checking over the brief to catch the mistake (view full article)
The lawyer was referred to the Second Circuit's grievance panel.
Federal prosecutors in New York on Wednesday announced the arrest of the first five people to face criminal charges arising out of an ongoing investigation into the widespread theft of $1 million worth of checks since 2021 intended for court-appointed lawyers (view press release).
“Black drivers have a problem in Richmond, Virginia. Richmond Police Department (‘RPD’) officers stop Black drivers five times more frequently than white drivers.”
These are the opening lines in United States v. Kieth Moore, No. 3:21-cr-00042 (E.D.V.A. Feb. 12, 2024), dismissing an indictment for felon-in-possession of a firearm after finding that Mr. Moore had proven selective prosecution involving RPD traffic stops.
As we commemorate Black History Month, it is crucial to reflect on landmark legal cases that have significantly contributed to the ongoing struggle for racial justice. One such pivotal case is Batson v. Kentucky.
At James K. Batson's 1982 state-court trial for burglary and receiving stolen property, the prosecution used “peremptory strikes” to remove four possible jurors who, like Batson, were black. The resulting all-white jury convicted Batson; he received a 20-year sentence.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law enforcement investigations continues to put innocent people, especially innocent people of color, at risk of wrongful arrest. Artificial intelligence technologies are being developed and implemented by law enforcement agencies across the country. Police increasingly use AI tools to surveille communities, investigate crimes, and collect large amounts of data related their targets. However, with this increased use of AI in policing, comes a growing number of innocent people being wrongfully arrested.
Colorado’s star DNA scientist intentionally manipulated evidence for years, calling into question all of the criminal cases she worked on in her nearly three-decade career, according to a preliminary investigation released by officials Friday (view full article).
On Tuesday, the Defender Services Committee took action in response to a critical issue. Recognizing the absence of representation for individuals accused of crimes in certain federal district courts during Initial Appearance hearings, the Committee issued a memorandum.
This directive was circulated to all federal court and Criminal Justice Act personnel, reaffirming that federal law requires representation by counsel during every Initial Appearance hearing.
Attorney Generals from across the country are urging the Supreme Court to give the “utmost” deference to Oklahoma’s admission and confession of prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Glossip v. Oklahoma, Case No. 22-7477, which resulted in Richard Eugene Glossip’s death sentence. In their amicus brief, the attorney generals are asking the Court to overturn Mr. Glossip’s conviction and death sentence noting “‘confessing error is a momentous step, one that attorneys general never take lightly. . .
Avery County, N.C. man registers as a sex offender and communicates regularly with the sheriff to make sure he's complying with registration requirements. Yet, a deputy swears out a warrant and has him arrested—including for the totally made-up crime of leaving the state for 30 days—even though he was following the sheriff's instructions. Yikes! Charges are dropped, and man sues for Fourth Amendment violations. Officers: We got a warrant though. Fourth Circuit: Whatever.
Alleged gang member is convicted of witness retaliation and sentenced to three years in prison after attacking a former member of his gang on the street in the Bronx. At trial, man asks court to explore potential gang bias during jury selection. Trial court: no, it would be “improper,” and will only ask general questions, never mentioning gangs. Second Circuit: no. New trial. The defense was not allowed to sufficiently screen for anti-gang bias among the jurors. "[D]istrict judges are afforded broad discretion in conducting voir dire.