June 12, 2026 Case Summaries

The jury unequivocally informed the trial court that it had reached a unanimous and final not guilty verdict on the charged offenses but was hung on the lesser included offenses. The trial court declared a mistrial and reset all counts for a retrial. In this Rule 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed because Colorado’s Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial on charges for which the jury has unanimously reached a final judgment favorable to the defendant. As such, Mena can only be retried on the lesser included offenses.

Colorado’s Safe Haven Law, section 19-3-304.5(1)(b), does not expressly provide a right to anonymity and confidentiality for a birth mother who legally relinquishes her child. But, since it is a good idea, the majority infers that parents who avail themselves of this law are entitled to anonymity and confidentiality.

The preliminary hearing court did not err by dismissing all counts that required proof of serious bodily injury (SBI) because the government’s evidence didn’t establish probable cause that the actual injury (traumatic iritis) carried a substantial risk of protracted loss or impairment to the victim’s eye, consistent with the definition of SBI.

The division affirmed the jury’s verdict in a civil suit finding Aurora Police Officer Nestor liable for excessive force. The claims raised on appeal have nothing to do with your criminal defense practice, but I thought you might like to know about the bad cop involved in this matter.

The division reversed numerous counts because evidence was admitted at trial that should have been suppressed as a result of the government’s unlawful search of Van Eck’s cell phone. Although the cellphone search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant, the search warrant failed to state with particularity the texts, call logs, and contacts that could lawfully be searched. The warrant also failed to provide probable cause because it contained only “vague allegations that the defendant engaged in illegal activity without establishing a nexus between the alleged criminal activity and place to be searched.”

In an opinion respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Sotomayor sets out the test for Strickland prejudice for a claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance during voir dire by deficiently litigating a Batson challenge to the prosecution’s use of peremptory challenges. Strickland prejudice in this context is established by showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome in the Batson challenge, not a reasonable probability of a different outcome in the trial.

The proper venue for trying an alleged violation of 18 U. S. C. §1519, making it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, is in the district where the falsification occurred not in a different district where the investigation was located.

This opinion concerns whether 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for rescission of any contract that allegedly violates the Act. Nothing for you in the merits. Instead, I draw this opinion to your attention because it shows how the new majority of SCOTUS hates to use legislative history to interpret a statute.