There has been a real paucity of relevant cases from the Seventh. We keep saving this article and hoping more could be added, but until things heat up again, we thought we’d share these cases from the last few months that might be relevant to our readers.
- United States of America v. Charles House, No. 23-1950: As far as we know, the usage of “pole cameras” to aid in law enforcement investigation is either not occuring with the frequency it occurs in Cook County or is simply not being challenged in Wisconsin as of yet. In any case, this case is another chapter in an ongoing legal saga, as the Seventh refuses to reconsider precedent permitting such warrantless surveillance. Judge Rovner files a concurring decision which raises important questions about the Fourth Amendment in context of a world increasingly under surveillance.
- United States of America v. Tyrone Offut, No. 23-2211: This case involves a challenge to the issuance of a flight instruction at Offut’s trial. Ultimately, the Seventh concludes that the circuit court erred in giving the instruction, although that error was harmless. While the outcome of the case hinges on federal law, we thought our readers might be interested to see the scrupulous way the issue of flight instructions is treated in federal court, as the Seventh generally disfavors such an instruction given its low probative value as measured against the risk of unfair prejudice. Perhaps litigators challenging such an instruction in State court may use the citations herein to their advantage.
- United States of America v. Anthony Bailey, No. 23-2258: In many ways, this is a straightforward Fourth Amendment case. Yet, as it arises from Wisconsin, we thought it relevant to include. Here, Bailey challenges the finding that there was probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct and attempts to use a body camera video to undermine the officer’s credibility. Even though Bailey makes some interesting arguments on that point, the Court ultimately affirms under a deferential standard of review and finds there was enough evidence to support an arrest under our “broad” disorderly conduct statute.
- United States of America v. Royel Page, No. 21-3221: This is a LONG decision on one of the more vexing concepts in criminal law, the definition of a criminal “conspiracy.” Long story short, the Seventh confirms that its precedent has failed to accurately track SCOTUS and confirms that “a drug conspiracy conviction can be sustained if the government proves that a buyer and seller engaged in repeated, distribution-quantity drug transactions.”
- Ricky Patterson v. Felicia Adkins, Warden, No. 20-2700: This is a fact-dependent habeas appeal stemming from Illinois, so we won’t bother to recap the procedural dispute as to whether his state court litigation properly tolled the habeas clock. The case is, however, notable as it is an exploration of the “actual innocence” exception for otherwise time-barred filings. Although Patterson has identified a wealth of new evidence that he claims points toward his innocence, the Seventh’s analysis shows just how stringent this test is and therefore rejects Patterson’s attempt to resuscitate his claims in federal court.
- Rufus West v. Jared Hoy, No. 22-1332: A non-criminal case, we still thought readers might be interested given that it involves federal litigation over policies at Green Bay Correctional. West challenges a “policy of prohibiting inmates from leading religious programs even when no outside religious leader or volunteer is available.” In short, he explains that this policy has the effect of leading to frequent cancellations of religious programs and has impacted Muslim prisoners like himself. The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s summary judgment finding against West.
