Skip to main content

Antitrust and Criminal Matters

By FindLaw Staff on March 10, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In US v. Banegas, No. 08-10915, the court of appeals reversed defendant's drug conspiracy conviction, on the ground that the trial court failed to state particularized reasons for requiring defendant to be shackled while defending himself pro se.

In US v. York, No. 09-40309, the court of appeals affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and carrying a destructive device, holding that 1) there was sufficient evidence that the fire at issue was intentionally set; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, because defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by a jury note requesting to hear again defendant's confession; and 3) evidence that defendant had harmed his girlfriend went to issues other than defendant's character because it explained that she withheld information from the police due to her fear of defendant's threats.

Wampler v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., No. 09-50208, involved an antitrust action on behalf of a putative class of all residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs) in five states who were limited to voice, video, and Internet service by contracts with defendant AT&T.  The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, on the ground that a single MDU (or MDUs in the aggregate) could not plausibly be considered a relevant geographic market for antitrust purposes.

Copied to clipboard