The United States Court of Appeals has issued four opinions in North Dakota cases.
In Thunderhawk v. Burgum the court heldthat in ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the district court did not decide the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings on that question.
Read the court's opinion at http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/203052U.pdf
In United States v. Counts the court heldthat the defendant's argument that the government's expert on the behavior of child sex abusers should not have been permitted to testify because the government failed to inform him that the expert had reviewed the case file fails because the government did not have to reveal that information under Rule 16(a)(1)(G); admission of a video of the victim's forensic exam did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as the victim testified at trial, and defendant had an opportunity for effective cross-examination.
Read the court's opinion at http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211471P.pdf
In United States v. Donavan White Owl the court held that the district court granted defendant's motion in limine to prevent the government from introducing incriminating statements defendant made to his wife in private after the fire which is the subject of the arson and felony murder charges in this case, and the government appeals. The district court erred in granting the motion because the statements qualified for admission under the third-person/spousal exception to the marital communications privilege, which applies where a spouse is charged with a crime against a third-person committed in the course of committing a crime against the spouse; the record showed defendant committed the arson and felony murder against the two third-part victims believing his spouse was in the house with them in an attempt to kill her.
Read the court's opinion at http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211489P.pdf
In United States v. Cruz the court heldthat the defendant's sentence, an upward variance above the advisory guidelines range, was not substantively unreasonable.
Read the court's opinion at http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/212788P.pdf