US v. Verdugo, 08-2175, concerned a challenge to the convictions of defendants for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.  In affirming the convictions, the court held that the district court did not err in denying defendants’ motions to suppress.  The court found that defendant waived his right to object to witness’s interpretative testimony, and that the district court properly excluded defendant’s videotaped statement.  Lastly, the court held that the district court’s mere presence instruction was a suitable substitute for co-defendant’s proposed instruction on the subject.

 

The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for coverage under the Policy as, in light of the fact that the Policy lacks a definition of the term “money damages” and given that in at least one of its relevant provisions the Policy construes “damages” in the context of one form of equitable monetary relief, it is unlikely that an ordinary insured would interpret damages as excluding monetary compensation in the form of reimbursement.  The court also held that because defendant failed to object to the magistrate’s recommendation regarding the existence of a wrongful act, this argument is deemed forfeited.  Lastly, the court affirmed the  dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for relief under UCSPA as plaintiff has failed to show that defendant lacked any legitimate or reasonable basis to deny coverage.

Related Resources:

  • Full text of Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 09-2040
  • Full text of US v. Verdugo, 08-2175

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules