James Taylor

Correspondent

James Taylor

Capitol Hill correspondent, covers legislative and political stories.

Criminal Justice

Decisions covered by James Taylor

1,493 decisions
May 26 2026
11th Cir. 2:24-cr-00114-ECM-1 Per Curiam

United States v. Lonich

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's refusal to rule on a motion to terminate supervised release while a separate appeal regarding the sentence remained pending in another circuit. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to act on the motion during the pendency of the appeal to ensure judicial economy and fairness.

May 26 2026
8th Cir. 24-2683 Panel Decision

United States of America v. Christian Lorenzo Witt

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop. The court held that a large spiderweb crack across a vehicle's windshield provided probable cause to stop the driver under South Dakota law.

May 26 2026
4th Cir. 25-4048 Panel Decision

United States v. Scott

The Fourth Circuit vacated a defendant's sentence because the district court erred in applying a crime-of-violence enhancement. The court held that a prior Virginia conviction for using a firearm during a robbery did not categorically satisfy the elements clause of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

May 26 2026
10th Cir. 25-5108 Panel Decision

United States v. Harris

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court order imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring mental health treatment. The appellate panel held that the defendant failed to demonstrate plain error because the record contained sufficient basis for the condition.

May 26 2026
4th Cir. 24-6747 Per Curiam

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part the district court's denial of a federal prisoner's motion for voluntary recusal and his successive habeas motion. The court clarified that while the recusal denial was proper, the lower court should have dismissed the successive motion claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.