Notice Of Appeal Spring 2022

Published date03 May 2022
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Criminal Law, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Biotechnology & Nanotechnology, White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud
Law FirmCozen O'Connor
AuthorMr Stephen Miller and Catherine Yun

Precedential Opinions of Note

Third Circuit Clarifies Standard of Review to Obtain Hearing on Search Warrant

United States v. Desu (January 7, 2022), No. 20-2962
Unanimous decision: Porter (writing), Chagares, and Roth


A jury convicted Defendant of tax fraud after he underreported his cash income from two of his pharmacies. Defendant argued on appeal that the affidavit in support of his search warrant was defective because it contained material omissions and misstatements made in reckless disregard for the truth. This, he claimed, misled the magistrate court in executing the warrant.


The Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's request for review of the search warrant. For the first time, the Court clarified the two-part standard governing review of such a request. First, the Court assesses - for clear error - a district court's decision regarding alleged false statements made in a warrant application. Second, after putting aside any defective statements, the Court reviews de novo a district court's review of a magistrate judge's probable cause determination. At the first step of this analysis, the Court held that Defendant had failed to show that any misstatement was sufficiently defective.

Key Quote

"Taken together, our precedent reveals the standard of review we should apply to a district court's denial of a motion for a Franks [v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)] hearing. We review for clear error a district court's determination regarding whether false statements in a warrant application were made with reckless disregard for the truth. Next, after putting aside any false statements made with reckless disregard for the truth, we review de novo a district court's substantial-basis review of a magistrate judge's probable cause determination." (Slip Op. at 15.)

Court Affirms Co-Defendant Did Not Require A Separate Trial

United States v. Allinson (March 4, 2022) No. 19-3806
Unanimous decision: Ambro (writing), Krause, and Bibas


A jury convicted Defendant of federal programs bribery and conspiracy after Defendant steered campaign contributions to the former Mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, in exchange for favorable municipal contracts. Defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that a trial alongside the former Mayor unduly prejudiced the Defendant. Defendant further claimed that the trial record failed to show a single conspiracy - as the Government had asserted in its indictment- which constituted an improper variance.


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT