In SKILLING v. UNITED STATES, No. 08-1394 (Jun 24, 2010), the Court held that a change of venue was properly denied. "Prominence does not necessarily produce prejudice, and juror impartiality... does not require ignorance." Slip opinion at 15. Jurors are not required to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved; scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. Every case of public interest is almost, as a matter of necessity, brought to the attention of all the intelligent people in the vicinity, and scarcely any one can be found among those best fitted for jurors who has not read or heard of it, and who has not some impression or some opinion in respect to its merits.
Slip opinion at 15-16.
The Court also held that 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which proscribes fraudulent deprivations of "the intangible right of honest services", is not unconstitutionally vague. However the Court construed the statute as properly confined to cover only bribery and kickback schemes. Because the Defendant's alleged misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback, it dis not fall within the Court's confinement of the § 1346 proscription. The Court held that reading the statute to proscribe a wider range of offensive conduct would raise the due process concerns underlying the vagueness doctrine. Slip opinion at 44-45.
In GONZALEZ v. STATE, No. 2D09-844 (Fla. 2d DCA Jun. 23, 2010), officers applied for a search warrant based on information which, in the aggregate, the DCA held "failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that contraband would be found in the residence at the time the warrant issued." The DCA concluded that "[b]ecause an objectively reasonable officer would have known that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause for the search, the good faith exception [in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)] does not apply." Slip opinion at 6-7.
In CORREA v. STATE, No. 2D08-6090 (Fla. 2d DCA Jun. 23, 2010), the court discussed an alleged violation of community control based on an alleged noncompliance with Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring rules. The court concluded that the rules for operation of that equipment are not to be treated "as a rigid regime in which every person subject to GPS monitoring must inevitably fall short of perfect compliance." However "intentional disregard of the GPS monitoring rules, tampering with the equipment, or actual violations of curfew or other activity restrictions will generally amount to willful and substantial violations of the conditions imposed." Slip opinion at 14.
In ISOM v. STATE, No. 2D09-3182 (Fla. 2d DCA Jun. 23, 2010), the DCA held that the age of prior convictions does not provide justification for a downward departure from a minimum permissible sentence under §
921.0026 Florida Statutes (2008).
