CA8 (11.18.04)

Three published opinions today. These summaries are from the Eighth Circuit’s site:

United States v. Rushing (01-3077, 01-3428, 01-3082): District court did not err in excluding defendant's expert's proposed testimony regarding likelihood of sexual transmission of Hepatitis B as the proffered testimony was not reliable and admissible under Daubert; no Brady violation as the government did not have a duty to disclose rejected plea offer under Brady; nor is there any evidence that the government made any sort of undisclosed agreement with the witness to secure her testimony or otherwise acted in bad faith.

Brown v. Barnhart (03-3248): The administrative law judge’s decision that child's condition did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment was supported by substantial evidence.

United States v. Escobar (03-4046): District court did not err in suppressing search of baggage as defendants had not given a valid consent to the search; fact that agent lied about drug-dog result, combined with location of the search and the agents failure to advise defendant of the right to refuse consent, support district court's conclusion that consent was tainted.