Punitive damages and rejected pleas

0
43
Punitive damages and rejected pleas

Petitions of the Week

By Andrew Hamm


at 11:32 a.m.

This week we highlight petitions asking the Supreme Court, among other things, to consider whether awarding punitive damages that doubles damages is compatible with due process, and how a defendant can prove that a lawyer, if rejected ineffectively assisting an objection offer.

Following a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Epic Systems received $ 140 million in compensation in a trade secret dispute with Tata Consulting Services. The jury also awarded Epic $ 700 million in punitive damages. The district court enacted a Wisconsin law that limits punitive damages to twice the amount of damages and capped Epic’s price at $ 280 million. On appeal, the US Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit ruled that awarding punitive damages that exceeded a one-to-one ratio was against due process because the damages were already high and the underlying claim was only economic Loss included. In its petition, Epic argues that the $ 280 million prize was properly negotiated as the Wisconsin statute clearly advises defendants of the potential amount of punitive damage. The case is Epic Systems Corp. against Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.

Anaya v. Lumpkin carries a burden of proof on defendants who claim they turned down a plea deal on false advice. David Anaya was charged with murder and aggravated assault with a lethal weapon in Texas for which he was claiming self-defense. Anaya declined to plead after his attorney told him that his failure to withdraw from the situation “doesn’t matter or makes a difference” to his self-defense rights under Texas law. His lawyer was wrong, however, because Anaya’s status as a criminal in possession of a gun meant that his failure to withdraw was relevant. During the trial, the government focused on ensuring that Anaya could not get out of the situation despite being in a car at the time the victim was shot. He received life sentences. Anaya’s petition before the Supreme Court includes his allegation that he received ineffective assistance from a lawyer in rejecting the appeal offer. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that Anaya had received a poor performance, but ruled against Anaya because the government could have withdrawn the appeal offer. In his petition, Anaya argues that the 5th Circle’s decision contradicts Supreme Court cases of ineffective support leading to denied plea agreements.

Last week the Supreme Court issued a New York law requiring that anyone wishing to carry a gun in the state must show good reason to obtain a certificate in an important second amendment (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. versus v Corlett). In Russell v. New Jersey, Reb Russell objects to a similar New Jersey law. The judges can keep this case simple pending a decision in New York.

These and other petitions of the week are listed below:

Russell v. New Jersey
20-1419
Problems: (1) whether the second amendment protects the right to carry weapons outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government can deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry a pistol outside their homes by conditioning the exercise of the right to show distress.

Epic Systems Corp. against Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
20-1426
problem: Whether a state law that expressly limits punitive damages to twice the amount of damages fulfills the obligation to terminate the due process clause, so that punitive damages according to the law under the due process clause are constitutionally unobjectionable.

Anaya v. Lumpkin
20-1440
problem: Whether the Supreme Court’s rulings clearly demonstrate that a defendant can demonstrate that he has been adversely affected by the poor performance of his attorney, which resulted in his being turned down an offer of objection if the defendant claims that the Protocol has not been objected to by the state does not contain any specific facts or circumstances to suggest that the State withdrew the plea or the court dismissed it.

United States v. Taylor
20-1459
problem: If 18 USC § 924 (c) (3) (A)The definition of “violent crime” excludes attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act, which is against 18 USC § 1951 (a).

Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC v Gulf LNG Energy, LLC
20-1462
problem: If she Federal Arbitration Act allows a court to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement in which all matters, including matters of arbitration, are delegated to an arbitrator if a party alleges that the claim being mediated is a “collateral attack” on a previous arbitration award.