Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Parents' Wrongful Death Suit for Their Soldier-Son's Death In Iraq, Plus Criminal Law Matters

By FindLaw Staff | Last updated on

US v. Quiles, 09-1667, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendants' motions for a new trial, in a conviction of defendants' for money laundering and related crimes in connection with their check cashing business.  In affirming the judgment, the court held that the interest of justice does not require a new trial as the new evidence of defendants' principal adverse witness's indictment for child rape and other crimes is merely impeaching.  The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to convict the daughter.  Lastly, the father's sentence is affirmed as the district court conducted a full sentencing hearing and then sufficiently explained why it was imposing a below-guideline sentence of 60 months imprisonment.


US v. Allen, 09-2747, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence of a firearm and statements to the police as fruits of an illegal seizure, in a conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  In affirming the denial, the court held that defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the police briefly detained him during execution of the search warrant at a bar in connection with an unrelated murder investigation.

Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Serv., Inc., 09-2325, involved plaintiffs' wrongful death and survival action against a government contractor for the death of their son, an active duty Army Ranger and Green Beret serving in Iraq, claiming that the defendant's negligence in electrical maintenance of the building where the son was electrocuted caused the death.  The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the district court's rejection of its political question and section 2680(j) defenses for lack of jurisdiction as the district court's March 31 order did not conclusively determine the disputed issues in this case, and as such, it cannot be reviewed under the collateral order doctrine.

Related Resources:

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard