BERTRAND, DANIEL v. OSWALD, THEODORE W. (ED Wis. )
Before POSNER, DIANE P. WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.CARLSON, PHILLIP D. v. GORECKI, MARY E. (ND Ill.)
POSNER, Circuit Judge. * * * The circumstances that we have narrated demonstrate a high probability that some, maybe all, of the jurors who tried Oswald were biased. It is not just what Klitzka said or what Schuenke said; those were merely the most dramatic indications that, as the judge obviously realized, the process of jury selection was being poisoned. The question is whether, given the indications of jury bias, the judge’s inquiry was adequate. From the case law we distill the principle that adequacy is a function of the probability of bias; the greater that probability, the more searching the inquiry needed to make reasonably sure that an unbiased jury is impaneled. * * *The order of the district court that Oswald be either retried or released is therefore AFFIRMED.
EVANS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority, in bolstering its decision, draws on an example we mentioned in Walberg v. Israel, 766 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1985), observing that if police have an airtight case they nevertheless cannot take an obviously guilty defendant “directly to the penitentiary on the ground that a trial would be a waste of time for someone so patently guilty.” But is this what happened here? No. Is this even remotely close to what happened here? No, again. Fifty prospective jurors were questioned over 4 days; the state trial judge granted 21 out of 27 of Oswald’s challenges for cause of potential jurors; the jury heard from numerous witnesses and examined many exhibits during the 3 weeks it took to complete the trial. Yet today, the court orders new tickets to this old show for reasons that, in my view, cannot support such a drastic step. * * *
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and MANION and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.INDORANTO, KIM v. BARNHART, JO ANNE, SOC. SEC. (ND Ind., Magistrate Judge Springmann) Social Security disability denial reversed.
MANION, Circuit Judge. Phillip Carlson and Thomas Smith worked as special investigators for the Kane County, Illinois, State’s Attorney’s office. In December 2000, defendant Mary Gorecki, the Kane County State’s Attorney, fired Carlson and Smith allegedly because of their speech on matters of public concern, namely, their support of Gorecki’s opponent in the election and their allegations that Gorecki was involved in various jobs-for-favors and kickback schemes. Carlson and Smith filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Gorecki’s decision to fire them violated the First Amendment. After discovery, Gorecki filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that Carlson and Smith occupied policymaking or confidential positions and that she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied Gorecki’s motion. She appeals, and for the following reasons, we affirm.
KIRCHER, CARL v. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST (SD Ill.)Before EASTERBROOK, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. * * * Contending that the fund and its investment adviser (Putnam Investment Management) had engaged in misconduct that reduced the value of their shares, plaintiffs filed suit in state court, invoking state law alone. They propose to represent a class of the Fund’s investors. By forswearing reliance on federal law plaintiffs hope to avoid the strictures of federal statutes such as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Similar maneuvers by other investors in the wake of the 1995 statute led Congress to enact the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. This statute, usually known by its ungainly acronym SLUSA, blocks many class actions based on state law when the issuers are covered by the federal securities laws. Preemption normally is an affirmative defense, to be evaluated by the court in which the plaintiff elects to sue. * * *
We recognize that two courts of appeals have held that disputes about the application of §77p and §78bb cannot be resolved by federal appellate judges. * * * Both the second and the ninth circuits were mesmerized by the word “jurisdiction” and did not see the difference between a case that never should have been removed and a case properly removed and remanded only when the federal job is done. * * *
The appeal is within our appellate jurisdiction and will proceed to briefing and decision on the merits.TICE, ROBERT H. v. AMERICAN AIRLINES IN (ND Ill.)
Before POSNER, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.USA v. HENTON, DAVID L. (ND Ill.) "Henton appeals, arguing that his recidivism should have been charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the district court erred when it determined that his 1993 state drug conviction qualified as a 'serious drug offense' under ACCA. We affirm."
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs in this suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act are 14 American Airlines pilots who, having reached age 60 and thus become disqualified (by virtue of a regulation of the Federal Aviation Administration that is not challenged) to pilot the airline’s planes, claim the right to downgrade to the position of flight officer. Some of American’s aircraft have three pilots in the cockpit—the captain, the first officer (copilot), and the flight officer. The flight officer must ordinarily be a pilot, but his duties do not involve flying the airplane; instead they involve monitoring the plane’s fuel, electrical, and other systems. American refuses to permit a captain who has been disqualified as a pilot to downgrade to flight officer. The plaintiffs, all former captains, contend that this refusal violates the age discrimination law.American replies that the refusal has nothing to do with age, but rather is compelled by its collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiffs’ union, which establishes an “up or out” policy: a flight officer who cannot qualify for a higher position cannot remain in the cockpit. * * *
The System Board of Adjustment found that American had for many years followed the “up or out” practice, that the union had acquiesced, and that the practice had become an implied term of the parties’ collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiffs challenge the correctness of this ruling, but we have no power to review an arbitral ruling for error. As long as what the arbitrators did can fairly be described as interpretation, our hands are tied. Since the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement “includes the power to discover [implied] terms,” and practices can through acquiescence by the parties “create an implied obligation,” the arbitrators’ conclusion that American’s “up or out” policy was an implied term of the collective bargaining agreement was interpretive and therefore binds us. AFFIRMED.
USA v. VALLEJO, JOSE (ND Ill.) Enhancement to defendant's sentence affirmed.