prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary mens era requirement.

US v. Nieves-Castano, No. 06-1517 (1st Cir. March 27, 2007)
Conviction for possession of a machine gun is reversed and a verdict for defendant ordered where the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary mens era requirement. Conviction for possession of a firearm within a school zone is affirmed over defendant's argument that the statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it fails to specify how to measure the 1000 foot distance from a school that marks the boundary of a school zone. The sentence is remanded for reconsideration in light of the reversal of the first charge.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/061517.html

confession to a crime that had been obtained illegally by police

The Justices rejected an appeal seeking to test an equally divided Mississipi Supreme Court ruling that involved the admission of a confession to a crime that had been obtained illegally by police in violation of the suspect's rights under Miranda v. Arizona. The state court found the admission was an error, but found that it was "harmless" because there was "overwhelming" evidence to support the conviction. The case was Haynes v. Mississippi (06-7827).

government's confession of error.

US v. Latu (03/19/07 - No. 05-10815)
A conviction for two counts of illegal possession of a firearm is affirmed in part but reversed in part where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(5)(A) is constitutional under the Commerce Clause and was properly applied in defendant's case; but 2) a conviction for violating section 922(g)(5)(B) is reversed pursuant to the government's confession of error.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0510815p.pdf

COPA Ruled Unconstitutional

COPA Ruled Unconstitutional
ACLU V. GONZALES
March 22, 2007

A federal judge rules that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a law intended to protect children from sexually explicit and pornographic online materials, is unconstitutional.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cberlaw/aclugnzls32207copa.pdf

Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007)

Freeman v. Watkins, No. 06-1394 (10th Cir. March 16, 2007)
In a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case asserting six violations of his constitutional rights, dismissal of his case for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies is reversed pursuant to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), which specifically abrogated the "total exhaustion" requirement and held that failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA, and inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/061394.html

Sentences for narcotics conspiracy are remanded

US v. Mansoori, No. 04-1950 (7th Cir. March 13, 2007)
Sentences for narcotics conspiracy are remanded so that the district court may consider whether it would have sentenced them differently knowing that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than binding, but one defendant's sentence is affirmed where the district court stated that it would not sentence him differently treating the Guidelines as advisory rather than binding.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041950p.pdf

guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, is vacated

US v. Kaba, No. 05-3813 (2d Cir. March 08, 2007)
Sentence, based on a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, is vacated where the district court impermissibly based its sentence on defendant's West-African heritage and thereby rendered the sentence invalid.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/053813p.pdf

likely deportation

US v. Wills, No. 06-0115 (2d Cir. February 26, 2007)
Sentence imposed based on conviction of cocaine and crack-related crimes is vacated as the district court did not properly apply the statutory factors listed in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) when it considered defendant's likely future deportation under the need to protect the public, or the extent of the difference between defendant's sentence and his co-defendant's. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/060115p.pdf